Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA AND JAPAN.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has had any recent report respecting the number and condition of refugees in Shanghai; and what steps are being taken to deal with them?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): According to the most recent report, the number of refugees at Shanghai at the beginning of December was estimated at approximately 250,000 in Nantao, 100,000 in the International Settlement, and 50,000 in the French Concession. I understand that, as far as the two latter areas are concerned, these refugees are housed in camps established by various international and Chinese charitable bodies under the supervision of the local authorities. The food situation has recently been reported to be easier after a period of some shortage.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish a White Paper containing a record of the occasions of direct injury to British citizens, property, and interests by the military forces of Japan in China that have called forth representations from His Majesty's Government, together with the action taken by His Majesty's Government on each occasion and the form of reparation made by Japan?

Mr. Eden: In a number of individual cases, when His Majesty's Government have been compelled to make representations to the Japanese Government, the facts have already received full publicity. There will, of course, be a large number of claims for damage to British property and interests, but it has not yet been pos- 
sible to formulate many of them, still less to verify them, and it is, therefore, premature to consider publishing a list in a White Paper. Such details as exist are for the greater part in the hands of British representatives in China, and have not reached me.

Sir Percy Harris: Does Japan accept liability in principle for any damage done where it can be proved that Japanese are responsible?

Mr. Eden: As the hon. Member knows, these claims fall into many different categories. In certain respects, the answer is, yes.

Mr. Thorne: Are the Japanese Government responsible for plundering by soldiers when they enter towns?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I think that that is one of the items in respect of which claims can be made.

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he proposes to publish the correspondence which has passed between this country and the United States on the subject of the Japanese attacks on British and American warships in the Far East; and, if not, whether he can give its nature?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir; I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Captain Plugge: Will any statement be made later, or published later?

Mr. Eden: Not as far as I am aware. I prefer to say nothing.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Have any proposals for general reinforcement been discussed with the United States?

Mr. Eden: I have said that I prefer to say nothing.

Captain Plugge: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make any further statement as to the measure and nature of the compensation which is to be paid by the Japanese Government for casualties caused by their troops to British soldiers and sailors in the current hostilities?

Mr. Eden: As the House is already aware, the principle of pecuniary compensation has been fully accepted by the


Japanese Government. The actual details are, however, still under discussion, and I am not, therefore, in a position as yet to make a statement.

Captain Plugge: Will His Majesty's Government make a specific claim, or will they await a definite offer by the Japanese Government?

Mr. Eden: This is not a matter of difference between us. It is now only a question of the financial details.

Mr. Bellenger: Is it not the case that claims in respect of loss of life are in a different category from claims in respect of property, and will the right hon. Gentleman not press for a very early statement on such claims?

Mr. Eden: I certainly do think so. That position has been accepted, and all that now remains to be decided are the amounts and to whom they are to be paid.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any notification on the subject of the Japanese authorities proposing to take over the administration of any part of the Chinese Customs service?

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the present position of the Chinese Customs' administration at Tientsin?

Mr. Eden: So far as the position at Shanghai is concerned, I have at present nothing to add to the answer given to the hon. Members for Central Southwark (Mr. Day) and Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) on 8th December. As regards Tientsin and Chinwangtao, I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Kingswinford on 24th November, since when there has been no change in the situation. The question has not arisen in any other port.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May we take it that the Government have no intention of recognising any assumption by Japanese authorities or by alleged Chinese authorities of rights which belong to the legitimate Chinese Government?

Mr. Eden: Subject to seeing that question on the Paper, I think the answer is yes.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is any part of the Customs revenue now being lodged in Japanese banks or banks under Japanese control?

Mr. Eden: I should like to have that question on the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communications from Hong Kong relative to the situation created there by the extension of Japanese hostilities to the neighbourhood of Canton?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I understand that arrangements are being made to cope with an influx of refugees if and when hostilities reach the neighbourhood of Canton.

Mr. Alexander: Will the right hon. Gentleman arrange that the Prime Minister might in the early part of the Debate to-morrow make some statement about the feared encirclement of Hong-Kong?

Mr. Eden: I do not know quite what the right hon. Gentleman means. Our own attitude about the encirclement of Hong-Kong has been made quite clear in the last few days.

Mr. Alexander: Yes, but is it not equally clear that it is reported that the Japanese contemplate invasion of Southern China?

Mr. Eden: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not mean that they contemplate invasion of Hong-Kong.

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement concerning the recent air-bombardment of Canton?

Mr. Eden: No report has reached me within the last 12 hours. I have received frequent reports of the bombing of the railways serving Canton but not of the recent bombing of the city itself. The Jinho aerodrome, about 3½ miles east of Canton, was bombed on 17th December.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that His Majesty's Government will not recognise in any way the provisional government installed in Peking by the Japanese authorities?

Mr. Eden: His Majesty's Government recognise the Central Government as the Government of all China. There is, therefore, no question of recognising the new administration.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

INTERNATIONAL LOANS.

Sir John Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Committee on International Loans, which met at Geneva on 6th December, has made any recommendations with regard to future contracts for international loans issued by States which are members of the League of Nations?

Mr. Eden: I understand that the Committee on International Loan Contracts is not yet in a position to make its report.

ITALY.

Sir Arnold Gridley: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Italy has discharged her financial obligations as a member of the League of Nations up to nth December, 1937; and, if not, approximately what sum she owed at that date?

Mr. Eden: The answer to the first part of the question is. Yes, Sir. The second part does not, therefore, arise.

EPIDEMICS, CHINA.

Mr. Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the League of Nations scheme for technical collaboration with China in its campaign against epidemics, it is proposed to promote the formation in this country of one or more mobile units, as has been done in France?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir; the Secretary-General of the League of Nations is making arrangements for the formation of an English-speaking unit. I understand that Dr. R. C. Robertson, head of the Division of Pathology and Bacteriology at the Lester Institute of Medical Research, Shanghai, has accepted the post of epidemic commissioner and leader of the unit, and that the other members of the unit are in process of selection. The interested Departments of His Majesty's Government are giving all possible assistance to the Secretary-General and Dr. Robertson in the performance of their task.

Mr. Watkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman state that in this very praiseworthy humanitarian work our country will lag behind no other?

Mr. Eden: That is quite clear. That is what we are doing, as I have just described.

Mr. Alexander: Has there been any protest from Japan?

Mr. Eden: There is no occasion for anybody to protest. Action of this kind is fully justified.

Mr. Alexander: Hear, hear.

POLAND.

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the official statement recently published in Warsaw that the Polish Government might have to withdraw from the League of Nations if the League became engaged in a struggle of ideological doctrines; and whether His Majesty's Government will take action, in conjunction with other members of the League, to dispel this fear?

Mr. Eden: I am aware of the statement referred to, though the question does not, I think, quite correctly reproduce it. As regards the second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member of the statement issued on nth November, 1936, by M. Beck and myself at the conclusion of M. Beck's visit to London, in which we recorded our opinion that nothing would be more fatal to the hopes of European appeasement than the division, apparent or real, of Europe into opposing blocs. The Polish Government are, therefore, well aware of the attitude of His Majesty's Government with regard to this point, which remains unchanged.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not the fact that the only ideological doctrine with which the League of Nations itself is concerned is their maintenance of world peace?

Mr. Eden: That is certainly my view.

Mr. Petherick: Is it not the case that, if the advice of the Opposition is followed, this country will be engaged in an ideological struggle against peace?

POLAND (STABILISATION LOAN).

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the


Council of Foreign Bondholders consulted the British Government before recommending to holders of bonds of the Republic of Poland 7 per cent. Stabilisation Loan Sterling Issue acceptance of a reduction of interest rate and a modification of sinking fund provisions as proposed by the Polish Government; and whether, in view of the balance of trade between Poland and the United Kingdom being in favour of Poland, he will represent to the Polish Government that the proposed departure from its contractual obligations is unnecessary and injurious to the credit of Poland?

Mr. Eden: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. I would remind my hon. Friend that, while the Council of Foreign Bondholders are in very close touch with the Foreign Office and the Treasury, who at all times are ready to give to the council their fullest support, the responsibility for recommending settlements to the bondholders rests with the council. I am satisfied that this procedure is in the best interests of all concerned

Sir J. Mellor: In the circumstances, will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a clearing office for Anglo-Polish payments, and will he request the Council of Foreign Bondholders to publish their reasons for making the recommendations to the bondholders referred to in the question?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I can do either of the things that my hon. Friend asks for. The matter is one for arrangement between the representatives of the bondholders and the governments concerned. Our policy is only to help.

Sir J. Mellor: What authority has the Council of Foreign Bondholders to speak on behalf of the bondholders?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

SPAIN.

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs particulars of the decision and/or agreement that was arrived at by the sub-committee of the Non-intervention Committee at their meeting held on Tuesday, 7th December; and whether it was considered that both

parties in Spain had now accepted the principle of the London plan?

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add to the statement which I made on 8th December, in answer to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. Mander).

Mr. Day: Has any decision been come to to send a visiting commission to Spain?

Mr. Eden: I understand that the committee decided that the answers were such as would enable them to continue their task. Part of their task is the appointment of a commission.

Mr. W. Roberts: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the number of British ships that have been sunk or damaged by mine, torpedo, bomb, gun or machine-gun fire during 1937 by the Spanish insurgents, by the Spanish Government, and by unidentified aeroplanes?

Mr. Eden: Of the two British ships sunk during 1937, one was torpedoed by an unidentified submarine, and the other bombed by aircraft belonging to the Salamanca authorities. Three British ships were damaged on the high seas during the same period, and His Majesty's Government consider that the damage caused to these ships was due to action taken by the Salamanca authorities. In addition, a certain number of ships have been damaged during bombardments when in Spanish ports, but I regret that I have not full details of all these incidents.

Mr. Thurtle: Is it not a fact that the unidentified submarine to which the right hon. Gentleman refers was, in fact, identified by the British intelligence service as an Italian submarine?

Mr. W. Roberts: Can the Foreign Secretary say that no damage has been caused to British ships by Spanish Government ships or aeroplanes, as far as he is aware?

Mr. Eden: I think that that can be inferred from my answer.

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to say what zone is being patrolled by the Italian naval forces under the Nyon Agreement?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have initiated inquiries, but I am not to-day in a position to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Noel-Baker) on 1st December.

Mr. Attlee (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a statement by Sir Robert Hodgson made to a member of the State Delegation for Press and Propaganda at Salamanca in which he described the aim of his mission as the re-establishment of normal relations, confidence and friendship between Spain and this country; and whether he will make a statement on the matter in view of the announcement of Government policy made before Sir Robert Hodgson's appointment?

Mr. Eden: I am unable to confirm the report of the statement to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, the text of which has not yet reached me. I would add, however, that if the statement attributed to Sir Robert Hodgson is correct, it does not appear to be in any way inconsistent with the policy of His Majesty's Government which this House has approved. The aim of Sir Robert Hodgson's mission is to protect British interests in that part of Spain under the control of General Franco. An essential preliminary to the satisfactory protection of these interests is the establishment of friendly personal relations with the authorities concerned.

Mr. Attlee: Does not the establishment of normal relations imply the recognition of a government which His Majesty's Government do not recognise at the present time?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I really do not think that that appears from the context. If you do not have normal relations, you have arbormal relations, and I prefer normal to abnormal relations.

Mr. Attlee: Surely the position of a trade agent sent to a government which is not recognised is necessary abnormal, as contrasted with ordinary diplomatic relations with a government which is recognised?

Mr. Eden: If the right hon. Gentleman will read the context as I have seen it in the Press, he will see that it is not quite

as he has said. Perhaps I ought to read it to the House. The words are these:
If we meet with a friendly disposition on the part of the authorities—and I do not doubt that such will be the case—we shall consider our mission crowned with success and that we shall have achieved something leading to the re-establishment of the normal relations, confidence and friendship which have existed for so many centuries between Spain and my country.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it the usual practice of consular agents, on appointment, to make general statements of that kind on relations?

Mr. Eden: Sir Robert Hodgson is the head of the mission, and I think it quite natural that he should have made this announcement. It appears when the whole context is read that he had in mind the past friendship between the two countries.

Mr. Alexander: Was Sir Robert Hodgson asked to sign the same kind of nonintervention declaration as that which has to be signed by every other person who leaves this country for Spain?

Sir Archibald Sinclair: Is not the use of the phrase "friendly relations between Spain and this country" inconsistent with the interpretation which the Secretary of State put upon Sir Robert Hodgson's speech, when he spoke of the personal relations between Sir Robert Hodgson and General Franco?

Mr. Eden: I think the right hon. Gentleman will see that that is not the case if the whole context is read. Sir Robert Hodgson was referring to
the re-establishment of the normal relations, confidence and friendship which have existed for so many centuries between Spain and my country.

Mr. Jagger: Does not that imply that he is accepting General Franco as the successor of those with whom those relations existed?

Mr. Maxton: Did not this House receive from the Foreign Secretary, when the Bill was being considered by us, a specific assurance that these men's duties were to be entirely of a commercial and a trading nature; and is not what we have heard the language of diplomacy such as is used by Ambassadors and Foreign Secretaries and not by trade commissioners?

Mr. Eden: I cannot think that there is anything in what Sir Robert Hodgson


said which is not calculated to facilitate his task of protecting British interests in that part of Spain.

Sir A. Sinclair: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that this statement by Sir Robert Hodgson will only be approved in so far as it is consistent with the declaration which the Foreign Secretary has just made?

Mr. Eden: Certainly, Sir, I am defending the statement because it seems to me, on the facts before me, to be entirely consistent with what I have said and with what this House has approved.

Mr. De la Bère: Would hon. Members allow their questions to be tinged with caution and common sense?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members seem to be repeating the same thing over and over again.

FOREIGN PROPAGANDA.

Mr. R. Acland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the intensified Italian broadcast propaganda in Arabic; and whether the British diplomatic representatives abroad are asked to report on its nature and effect?

Mr. Eden: The answer to both parts of the question is. Yes, Sir.

Mr. Acland: Would it not be worth while to let the Italians know that unless this broadcasting stops His Majesty's Government will have to consider broadcasting in Italian?

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the answer to another question on that point.

Sir William Davison: How long will it be before a proper broadcasting station is erected in Cyprus, or some other site on the Mediterranean, which will give proper British news and correct false statements?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a statement on the full reports received by His Majesty's Government in connection with Italian propaganda in Palestine?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. In view of certain reports which had been received of Italian propaganda in the Near and Middle East, I recently informed the Italian Ambassador that His Majesty's Government were well aware of this propaganda and added that unless it could be brought to an end, it would be impossible to create the atmosphere necessary to the prosecution of successful conversations designed to improve our mutual relations.

Mr. Henderson: Has any reply been received to that representation?

Mr. Eden: I said that it was a recent conversation.

Mr. Acland: If it is possible that the Italians do not desire conversations to go on, would the right hon. Gentleman make representations, as I suggested in an earlier question, that we should start broadcasting in Italian?

Mr. Eden: I think that, as far as the broadcast of news in the Near East is concerned, the House is aware that there is at the present time a broadcast of news in Arabic from Palestine.

Mr. Acland: Would not Italian be useful, too?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is not this propaganda absolutely without any precedent of any kind, and is it not an intolerable outrage?

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Italian propaganda has ceased since the representation was made?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir.

Mr. Herbert Morrison: In view of the fact that nearly every Government in the world is disseminating news or propaganda in foreign languages, why does the Foreign Office—presumably it is the Foreign Office—restrain the British Broadcasting Corporation from disseminating straight British news in German and Italian as well as in Arabic?

Mr. Eden: The right hon. Gentleman must not assume that the Foreign Office is restraining anybody from doing anything of that kind. At the moment, as I have said, news is being distributed in a number of foreign languages.

Mr. Morrison: Only in Arabic and Spanish.

Mr. Eden: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question to the Postmaster-General, whose Department is concerned?

Mr. De la Bère: May I ask what the B.B.C. did on 7th May?

Mr. Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that in certain countries where British interests are concerned, Germany and Italy have appointed active representatives for purposes of propaganda; that large sums of money are spent for this purpose on the films, broadcasting, and the Press; that much of this propaganda is not merely in pursuance of the interests of these nations, but is strongly anti-British; and whether he will arrange for steps to be taken directly by the Government to deal with these activities?

Mr. Eden: I can assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government are fully aware of the active propaganda work being done by certain other countries in furtherance of their own point of view and interests abroad. As the House will also be aware, certain steps have recently been taken with a view to distributing objective news in particular areas. The employment of other methods of making known the British point of view is, moreover, the constant concern of His Majesty's Government, but I am not able to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. Lawson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the decision recently arrived at upon this matter did not really affect other methods of propaganda besides broadcasting; and in view of recent rather startling information will he say whether the Government intend to review the whole position?

Mr. Eden: I fully appreciate the point which the hon. Gentleman has just made, but my answer covered other things beside broadcasting, and I am not in a position to make any further statement at present.

Mr. Short: Is the right hon. Gentleman in touch with the Home Office upon this matter, and particularly in respect of the admission of aliens into this country?

Mr. Eden: That has nothing to do with the question on the Paper, which is concerned with propaganda in foreign countries.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is not this particular practice of these two countries following the bade example previously set by Soviet Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

LAND FERTILITY SCHEME.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Government are aware of the rise in both lime and basic slag which has taken place since the introduction of the scheme for land fertility by the Government; that the rise has, to a large extent, offset the grant made by the Government; and what steps the Government are taking to prevent a further rise?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): The facts are not as stated. Since the introduction of the land fertility scheme, the price of basic slag has been reduced, and producers of lime have, in general, been approved as suppliers on condition that the prices charged by them under the scheme do not exceed those normally ruling on 1st May, 1937, that is, before the proposals were announced.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a premium of 10s. or 12s. has been asked in certain cases, and will he look into this matter if I have a word with him afterwards?

Mr. Morrison: I am not at all aware of the particulars upon which my hon. Friend founds his general allegation, but if he has any cases of the contravention of the provisions of the scheme, I hope that he will be good enough to bring them to my notice.

Mr. W. Roberts: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any application from organisations representing the producers of lime to approve of an increase of price?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I have received a memorial signed by 108 producers of lime asking for an increase in the permitted price because of the increase in the costs of production. The scheme itself has provided for such an eventuality by means of an independent accounting examination, and that is now being undertaken.

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether the Land Fertility Committee proposes to issue an


explanatory memorandum of what is required to enable an association of smallholders to be approved for the purposes of the land fertility scheme?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I understand that the memorandum is almost in final form, but that it will be some days before it is issued.

POULTRY INDUSTRY (FISH MEAL).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether in view of the large quantity of fish which is destroyed or thrown back into the sea, the Government will consider setting up a factory for the production of fish meal to enable the poultry-keepers to obtain a supply of this feeding-stuff at a reasonable figure, seeing that the difficulties of the poultry-keepers may, to a large extent, be attributed to the high cost of feeding-stuffs?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: There are already factories for the production of fish meal at a number of the leading fishing ports. The quantity of fish that is destroyed or thrown back into the sea represents an extremely small percentage of total landings, and the greater part of this occurs at ports where supplies would, in any case, be wholly inadequate to make economic the establishment of a factory to deal with surplus landings.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the real plight of the poultry-keepers throughout this country, and that Evesham way they are very exercised over this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I am aware of the plight of poultry-keepers, but I would point out to my hon. Friend that fish meal can be used only in very small proportions in the ordinary poultry rations, and that other ingredients very largely add to the costs.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that every little helps?

Mr. H. Morrison: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a curious commentary upon the economic system that good fish should be wilfully destroyed?

Mr. Morrison: The matter must not be exaggerated. If you take into account the landings of white fish into this country up to the last months of this year, the amount thrown back amounted to only

.004 per cent. The position in Scotland as regards herring is rather different, but even there the amount destroyed was only 1½ per cent. of the total landings.

Miss Wilkinson: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the quantities and not the percentages?

Mr. Morrison: I have them, and if the hon. Lady cares to put down a question, I will give the quantities from which these answers were produced.

MILK (CUT PRICES).

Major Procter: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that the Milk Marketing Board are not carrying out their statutory obligations in declining to prosecute large distributors in the Accrington area who are now selling milk at 4d. a quart or 3d. per quart below the regional price, whereas a few weeks ago the Board fined the small retail-producers for selling milk at 6d. per quart; and whether he will take steps to see that the Board enforces the law and thus prevents the smaller producer-retailers from being forced out of business by subsidised price cutting?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: Whatever may be their contractual rights, I am not aware that the Milk Marketing Board are under any statutory obligation or that they have any statutory power to prosecute, or to impose penalties upon, distributors who sell milk at cut prices. As to the last part of the question, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to previous answers given on this subject.

Major Procter: If my right hon. Friend will read the Act, he will see that it says that the Board "shall" impose a penalty, not "may"; and is he aware that the Milk Marketing Board are not carrying out that Section of the Act?

Mr. Morrison: I think that my hon. and gallant Friend is under a slight misapprehension in this matter. The rights of the Milk Marketing Board as against the purchasers of milk wholesale are governed entirely by the terms of the contract, and it is the duty of the Milk Marketing Board to decide, as it would be in the case of any other person, whether they will commence civil proceedings for breach of contract. In the case of the relations between producer-retailers, on the other hand, and the Milk Marketing


Board, these are statutory, and are enjoined in the scheme.

RIVER WYE (POLLUTION).

Mr. Short: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now state the cause of the pollution of the River Wye near Morsal Dale and Miller's Dale, Derbyshire; and whether the Trent Fishery Board has decided on a prosecution?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I understand that, as a result of investigations, the Trent Fishery Board have reached the conclusion that the cause of the recent pollution was the accidental breaking of a pipe in the gas works installation of the Buxton Corporation, and have decided to take proceedings against the corporation under Section 8 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act, 1923.

Mr. Short: As this pollution is due to the flow from business premises, will the Minister call the attention of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to this matter?

Mr. Morrison: The matter is really one for the Trent Fishery Board, and as they have undertaken proceedings against the corporation responsible, I feel that I ought not to say anything about the question in the meantime.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General whether, following the Government's expressed view at the International Labour Conference at Geneva that the Government saw no reason for the nationalisation of employment agencies, he will say whether the British Broadcasting Corporation have consulted the Government as to their intention to open an artistes' agency; and what has been the Government's reply?

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I am assured that the corporation have no intention of opening an artistes' agency.

TELEVISION.

Mr. Day: asked the Postmaster-General particulars of the reason for the

delay in completing the arrangements of the proposed television station at Birmingham; and when it is contemplated that this or other similar television station will be opened in the provinces?

Sir W. Womersley: The question of extending the television service to areas outside the present range of the London station has been considered by the Television Advisory Committee, who have decided that further research is necessary on certain aspects of the problem. This research is in progress and, until it is completed, the committee will not be in a position to make any recommendation concerning the establishment of additional television stations.

Mr. Day: What is to become of the equipment supposed to be used for Birmingham?

Sir W. Womersley: That is a matter about which I have to inquire, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this committee is pursuing its research night and day.

Mr. Day: Is it intended to link up the provinces with the television broadcast from the London end?

CHRISTMAS AIR MAILS (AFRICA).

Mr. Banfield: asked the Postmaster-General the volume of Christmas mail carried by Imperial Airways, Limited, to Africa; and whether it is being found that the arrangements are adequate to carry all such communications without any delay?

Sir W. Womersley: During the period 19th November–18th December, inclusive, about 45 tons of first-class mail were carried from this country to South and East Africa by Imperial Airways, or more than double the normal monthly load. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, it is too early to express a final opinion on the results of the special measures taken by the Post Office and Imperial Airways for the conveyance by air of these unprecedented loads, but I anticipate that the provision made will prove to have been adequate.

Mr. Banfield: Is the hon. Member aware that serious complaints have already been made as to the impossibility of getting the air mail in time for Christmas?

Sir W. Womersley: I am not aware of that. If the hon. Member can bring to my notice any complaints I should be glad to investigate them. Our information is that everything has gone very smoothly. We have had airships ready to take on any extra load.

HOUSE OF PARLIAMENT.

SLEEPING ACCOMMODATION.

Mrs. Tate: asked the First Commissioner of Works the number and names of persons allotted sleeping accommodation in the Palace of Westminster?

The First Commissioner of Works (Sir Philip Sassoon): The following have residences in the Palace of Westminster:

The Speaker.
The Serjeant-at-Arms.
Deputy Serjeant-at-Arms.
Yeoman Usher of the Black Rod.
Superintendent of the House of Lords.
Superintendent of the House of Lords Refreshment Department.
Engineering Superintendent of Works.
Foreman Engineer.
Apartments are allotted to one housekeeper and three office keepers; bedrooms are provided for four officers of the House of Commons and for 18 members of the Commons' kitchen staff.

Mrs. Tate: In view of the fact that there is very great shortage of accommodation where Members can meet their constituents or work with their secretaries, is the right hon. Gentleman absolutely sure that 18 rooms are necessary for members of the kitchen staff in the Palace of Westminster?

Sir P. Sassoon: If the hon. Lady will give me her views I will convey them to the authorities of the House.

Mr. Thorne: Why is it that the right hon. Gentleman has not included the chairs in the women Members of Parliament's room as sleeping couches?

Mr. George Griffiths: Is the accommodation mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman exclusive of the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Alexander: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many hon. Members would not wish accommodation to be taken away from the women staff who are kept late on duty?

CLOCKS.

Mr. Vyvyan Adams: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he has now considered the fresh evidence submitted to him by the hon. Member for West Leeds of overwhelming support for the placing of a second clock in the Chamber above Mr. Speaker's Chair to correspond with the one below the Bar, namely, not only almost the entire personnel of the Liberal and Labour Oppositions but also more than 200 supporters of His Majesty's Government, excluding any support there may be among Ministers; and whether he has now any statement to make on the matter?

Mr. Thurtle: asked the First Commissioner of Works what objection he has discovered in any quarter of the House to the proposal that a second clock should be installed in the Chamber; and will he now defer to the wishes of the majority of Members in this matter?

Sir P. Sassoon: In view of the support accorded to the proposal of the hon. Member for West Leeds (Mr. V. Adams) I have again consulted the authorities of the House, and will arrange for a second clock to be placed in the Chamber.

Mr. Adams: For this eventual accommodation may I thank not only the First Commissioner of Works, but also the usual channels?

Mr. Petherick: Would it not be possible to make it an alarm clock?

PORTRAIT AND MOSAICS.

Captain Alan Graham: asked the First Commissioner of Works whether he will give orders for the cleaning during the Recess of the portrait of Luke Hansard, now hanging in the Members' newly-cleaned Dining Room; and whether he can substitute the correct heraldic coat-of-arms over the mosaic figures of the national patron saints of Scotland, Wales, and Ireland in the Central Hall of the Palace of Westminster for the present incorrect ones?

Sir P. Sassoon: The picture of Luke Hansard was cleaned recently and I am advised that more drastic treatment would be detrimental; I will consider whether its position might be altered with advantage. I will also consider the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend regarding the mosaics.

DEFENCE.

SHELL-FILLING FACTORY, USK.

Mr. A. Jenkins: asked the First Commissioner of Works when the work in connection with the proposed shell-filling factory near Usk, Monmouthshire, will be commenced; whether he can indicate the approximate number of persons that will be employed in the preparation of the site and construction of the factory; and by what date will the works be completed?

Sip P. Sassoon: It is hoped to start preliminary work on the site next March. The maximum number of men likely to be employed on the construction of the factory will be about 1,800, but in the early stages of the work a much smaller number will be required. The work is expected to be completed in the Spring of 1940.

Mr. Jenkins: asked the Minister of Health whether any provision has been made to prevent indiscriminate building near the site of the proposed shell-filling factory at Usk, Monmouthshire; and, if not, will he take early steps to ensure that the area is properly planned?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Bernays): No resolution to prepare a planning scheme for the area to which the hon. Member refers has yet been passed. My right hon. Friend has, however, recently been in touch with representatives of the local authorities concerned, and they are considering the matter.

Mr. Jenkins: Will the Minister of Health take the initiative in convening a conference between the town council, the urban council and the rural council responsible for the area in order to get it properly planned before the area is destroyed?

Mr. Bernays: I will bring the hon. Member's suggestion to the notice of my right hon. Friend.

EAST SCOTLAND.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence what defence measures are being adopted in the East of Scotland, especially in view of the removal of Royal Air Force units from Turnhouse and Donibristle stations?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Captain Margesson): I have been asked to reply. Defence measures for the localities specified in the hon. Member's question have not been overlooked. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the precise character or extent of these measures.

Mr. Mathers: Can the right hon. and gallant Member say whether the decision to make these alterations was a purely Air Force decision or is one that comes under the general scheme of defence; and if it was a purely Air Force decision, may I ask him to request the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence to review the whole position?

Captain Margesson: Perhaps it would be better for the hon. Member to put down another question.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in Scotland in 1935 there were two antiaircraft units and that in 1937 there were still two anti-aircraft units? What rate of progress does this indicate?

OIL EXTRACTION.

Sir W. Davison: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the attention of the Falmouth Committee has been drawn to a process for the extraction of oil from coal known as the Freeman process, which it is claimed can produce oil on an economic basis; and what has been the result of the committee's inquiries as to the process in question?

Captain Margesson: My right hon. Friend regrets that until a decision has been reached as to the publication of the report of the Falmouth Committee he is not in a position to make any statement concerning evidence submitted to the committee or concerning views formed by the committee as a result of their inquiries.

Sir W. Davison: Will the right hon. and gallant Member be good enough to ask the committee whether they have seen fit to hold any inquiry into the Freeman process referred to in the question?

CARBIDE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he


will make available to Members the proceedings of the Carbide Investigation Committee set up by the Government to inquire into the location of calcium carbide factories?

Captain Margesson: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Inverness (Sir M. MacDonald) and Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans) on 28th October.

Mr. Sexton: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I wish to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

CIVIL AVIATION.

CROYDON AIRPORT.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether in view of the fact that the overall gradients of Croydon airport are greater than those laid down by the Air Ministry as necessary for a standard aerodrome, it is proposed to continue air services from this airport during 1938?

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): Yes, Sir. Minor land levelling operations are in progress and will be continued, but the circumstances at present do not call for a general re-levelling of the whole surface, which would necessitate the aerodrome being out of use for a considerable period.

Mr. Perkins: Will these new levelling operations result in the aerodrome being good enough for the Air Ministry standard?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: At the present moment it is not considered that the deviation from the Air Ministry's standard is actually dangerous.

BRITISH AIRWAYS, LIMITED.

Mr. Perkins: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet appointed a Government director to the board of British Airways, Limited?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: As announced in the Press on 15th December, Lord Monsell has been appointed a Government director on the Board of British Airways, Limited, as from 13th December, 1937.

Mr. Short: Carl the hon. and gallant Member tell us what are his qualifications?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: Lord Monsell was the First Lord of the Admiralty until recently. It is considered that his long service in public life fits him for the position.

Mr. Short: Has he ever been in the air?

Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead: I cannot say.

PALESTINE.

COMMUNAL LEVIES.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount of the collection fines levied from villages or towns in Palestine during the last two years; how much has been collected; how much has been remitted; how much remains to be collected; and whether any steps are still being taken to collect?

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I am not in possession of the latest details, but I will ask the High Commissioner whether they can be supplied. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a copy of the reply if it comes during the Recess?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, if it comes.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the total amount piad by Arab villages in Palestine for the upkeep of penal police posts; how much of the cost has been remitted; and how much is now due?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The required information is not in my possession. I will ask the High Commissioner whether it can be supplied.

Colonel Wedgwood: May I be supplied with a copy of this reply also?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir.

ARMS (LICENCES).

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the loyal Arabs as well as the Jewish farmers in Palestine have appealed for the right to have arms to defend themselves; and will he grant such request?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not know of such a request. So far as I am aware the issue of licences for the possession of arms in approved cases has not been suspended.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask whether these applications have to be made to the Government in Palestine, if not to him, and will he say how many more people have to be murdered before they are allowed to defend themselves?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that in all cases where the Government have reason to believe the arms will not be abused and will be securely retained, and not fall into the hands of those guilty of these outrages, licences under due conditions continue to be issued.

BARBADOS (COMMISSION'S REPORT).

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received a copy of the report of the commission appointed in the Colony of Barbados to consider the unrest in the summer; and whether, and when, the report will be issued?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The report to which the hon. Member refers was published recently in Barbados, and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

CONTRIBUTORY PENSIONS ACT, 1937.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Minister of Health what method he is adopting to make it known that the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, 1937, comes into operation on 3rd January, 1938?

Mr. Bernays: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to his previous question of 30th July last. Approximately 750,000 copies of the booklet referred to in that answer have been issued to the public, and my right hon. Friend is much indebted to a number of hon. Members for assisting in its distribution. Applications to become special voluntary contributions under this scheme are at present reaching my Department at the rate of over 12,000 a week, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the benefits of the new scheme are becoming more and

more widely known. The special advantages for initial entrants remain open to all qualified persons who apply at any time before 3rd January, 1939.

Miss Ward: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether any use is being made of broadcasting?

Mr. Bernays: I will make inquiries.

MATERNITY HOSPITAL, CARMARTHENSHIRE AND LLANELLY.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the consultations he has had with the Carmarthenshire County Council and the Llanelly Borough Council in regard to the provision of a maternity hospital for the eastern portion of the county?

Mr. Bernays: I understand that a meeting between representatives of the two authorities has been held, and my right hon. Friend is hoping to hear shortly from the county council the result of their consideration of the suggestions made.

UNEMPLOYMENT.

GOVERNMENT POLICY.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now make a statement as to what plans the Government have prepared to meet the serious unemployment problem that will emerge on the falling off of the armaments programme?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 28th October last.

Mr. Gibson: May I ask the Prime Minister, if he recalls that this matter has been the subject of repeated questions to him and other Ministers since July, and that I myself have asked him on 28th July—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member cannot give a résumé of the case.

Mr. Gibson: I was not going to give a résumé of the whole position, but in view of what the Prime Minister has said, I think I ought to have an opportunity to ask him another question. The Prime Minister said on a former occasion that


the matter has been under the consideration of the officials of the Departments mainly concerned. May I ask whether those officials are still considering the matter or whether they have stopped considering it?

The Prime Minister: They are still considering it.

Mr. Gibson: Can the right hon. Gentle-man say when we may hope to get a result?

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that area officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board do not regard the circular on winter allowances as constituting a change of circumstances in the case of applicants for increased allowances owing to the increasing cost of living, and refuse to consider claims for an increase unless there are other new circumstances calling for a review of the applicant's allowance; and whether he will take steps to have all cases reviewed in the light of the winter allowances circular?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Butler): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. Griffiths) on 18th November. I should add that all current cases have now been reviewed at least once since the issue of the instruction, and that a further review is now in progress.

Mr. Stephen: Is the hon. Member aware that I sent him a case from Aberdeen where there has been no review for a year, and that when the applicant made his application he was told that it could not be reviewed until new circumstances arose?

Mr. Butler: I am told that a second review is in progress, but I will look into the matter.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the hon. Member aware that the circular to which he has referred has not been applied to single men except in exceptional cases in Glasgow, and will he, therefore, make representations to the Glasgow officials to apply this circular to all single men?

Mr. Butler: That is a question of bringing the matter to the attention of the Unemployment Assistance Board.

Miss Wilkinson: May I ask how the hon. Member reconciles the fact that far from there being increases to meet the increased cost of living, there are reductions under the circular of 1st January still being put into operation?

Mr. Butler: That raises a completely different question. This is a circular which deals with special allowances to meet the cost of living.

Miss Wilkinson: How can the hon. Member say that it raises a completely different question when the one circular tells of an increase, and the other circular of a decrease?

Mr. Butler: There were increases in the first circular as well as decreases.

Mr. Stephen: asked the Minister of Labour the number of applications made for additional assistance and the number of applications granted since instructions were issued to the district officers of the Unemployment Assistance Board instructing them to take into consideration the increase in the cost of living and the greater need of the winter months at Southbank Street and Boden Street offices, Glasgow, respectively?

Mr. Butler: The numbers of additions made to assessments on account of the special circumstances dealt with in the Unemployment Assistance Board's circular during the four weeks ended 30th November in the offices of the Board in Boden Street and Southbank Street. Glasgow, were 3,603 and 1,314 respectively. These figures exclude cases in which the assessment already contained an equal or greater addition under standstill arrangements.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of applicants who have received an increase of their allowances from the Greenock Unemployment Assistance Board on account of the increased cost of living; the number of applicants on standard benefit who have received such increases; and the total amount of such increases at Greenock up to the end of November, 1937?

Mr. Butler: The number of additions made to assessments on account of the special circumstances dealt with in the Unemployment Assistance Board's circular during the four weeks ended 30th November in the Board's administrative


area of Greenock was 1,237. The average rate of increase was approximately 2s. 2d. a week. The figures exclude cases in which assessment already contained an equal or greater addition under standstill arrangements. As regards the second part of the question, I regret that statistics are not available.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that large numbers of persons residing in Newtown-grange and Gorebridge and the district are compelled to go weekly into Dalkeith in order to draw unemployment assistance; and, in view of the fact that the cost to each of these persons represents between 8d. and 1s. omnibus fare, will he make arrangements for an official of the Unemployment Assistance Board to come out to one of these towns and make the payments in one of the local halls?

Mr. Butler: Inquiry is being made. I will communicate in due course with my hon. and gallant Friend.

Captain Ramsay: Can the hon. Member give me any idea when he will be able to get the information?

Mr. Butler: As soon as possible.

COAL INDUSTRY (STATISTICS).

Mr. Tinker: asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will give the latest figures that he can of the number of persons employed in the mining industry and the output per man-shift worked, and the same figures for 1924?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): During the first nine months of 1924 and 1937 the average numbers of wage-earners on the colliery books were 1,182,500 and 774,700 respectively. The output per man-shift worked was 17.54 cwts. in the first nine months of 1924 and 23.36 cwts. in the corresponding period of 1937.

Sir W. Davison: Has the hon. and gallant Member any information of the hours worked underground by men and women in the Russian coal mines?

FACTORY INSPECTIONS (GLASGOW).

Mr. Stephen: asked the Minister of Labour the number of inspections made

in factories in the Camlachie Parliamentary Division of Glasgow by the trade board inspectors for the 12 months ended to the last convenient date; in how many cases were breaches of the trade board legislation discovered; and what action has been taken?

Mr. Butler: I regret that separate figures for Parliamentary divisions are not available.

Mr. Stephen: Can the hon. Member give the figures for Glasgow, and also an assurance that these inspections are taking place regularly and frequently?

Mr. Butler: A recent figure I have for the whole of Scotland shows that there were 1,554 inspections during the 12 months ending 31st December, 1936.

Mr. Buchanan: In view of the fact that there has been a large increase of young women in certain industries, will he get into touch with the Scottish Department to see that these places are inspected more regularly?

Mr. Butler: I think these places are regularly inspected. The figure I have given shows this, but I shall be obliged if the hon. Member will put down a question, and I will give him further information.

ROYAL NAVY (CRUISER CONTRACTS).

Miss Ward: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he has any further announcement to make regarding the placing of contracts for warships?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Shakespeare): Yes, Sir. An order for one 8,000-ton cruiser is being placed with each of the four following firms:

Messrs. Swan, Hunter and Wigham Richardson, Limited, Wallsend-on-Tyne;

Messrs. John Brown and Company, Limited, Clydebank;

Messrs. A. Stephen and Sons, Limited, Govan; and

Messrs. Vickers-Armstrongs, Limited, who will build the vessel at their High Walker Yard.

Mr. Alexander: May I ask in what programme these ships are included,


1937 or 1938? If the former, how does the hon. Member reconcile his answer with the answer given to the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. R. Gibson) last week?

Mr. Shakespeare: They are the conclusion of the 1937 programme.

Mr. Churchill: Can the hon. Member say whether these new cruisers are equal to contemporary vessels built by other countries?

Mr. Shakespeare: Certainly, similar to those built under the conditions laid down in the London Naval Treaty.

Mr. H. Morrison: Will these ships be built under the armament programme or under the election programme?

Mr. Alexander: May I ask the hon. Member to reconcile the answer to-day with the answer last week, when the Parliamentary Secretary said that no more ships were to be built under that programme? Was that a special answer for Greenock, or is to-day's answer a special answer for other ports?

Mr. Shakespeare: I think the right hon. Member must have misunderstood the reply. This is the conclusion of the 1937 programme.

Mr. Gibson: Arising out of the original answer, can the hon. Member say why none of these vessels are to be built on the lower part of the Clyde?

MILK-IN-SCHOOLS SCHEME.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that, under the milk-in-schools scheme as now operated by the Milk Marketing Board, certain education authorities find themselves unable to supply milk to some schools in outlying districts owing to the cost of delivery and are being forced to consider the supply of substitutes such as dried milk; and whether, in view of these circumstances, he is satisfied that the scheme is being operated in accordance with the intentions of the Government and Parliament?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): The supply of milk for purchase by children under the milk-in-schools scheme is not undertaken directly

by local education authorities, but the Board are aware that in certain outlying districts difficulties are being experienced in obtaining a supply of liquid milk, and my Noble Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and with the Milk Marketing Board as to what steps are practicable to remove these diffculties. I may, however, refer the hon. Member to my reply of 18th November last to the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), which showed that the number of public elementary school children in 41 county areas taking milk under the milk-in-schools scheme was nearly 35,000 greater on 1st October, 1937, than on 1st October, 1936.

Mr. de Rothschild: While thanking the hon. Member for his reply, is it not a fact that a large number of children are now taking powdered milk, and that in this case it is immaterial whether there are 30,000 more getting pure milk, since I asked the question on behalf of those children who get only powdered milk?

Mr. Lindsay: I agree. I did say that my Noble Friend is in direct consultation now with the Ministry of Agriculture on that very question.

BRITISH ARMY.

RECRUITS (PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now in a position to state what progress has been made with the centre at Canterbury to deal with the reconditioning of the unfit recruits; how many man have passed through the development course and begun their training, which in its turn will fit them to join their regiment or corps; how many men are undergoing a scientifically progressive course of exercise; and what further accommodation will be provided for the centre at Canterbury during 1938?

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Sir Victor Warrender): This depot, at which there are now some 238 men under training, is expected to be completed by next February, and will then be able to accommodate 300 men. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given on 30th November to the hon.


Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger). The hope my right hon. Friend then expressed that he would be in a position to extend the scope of the experiment does not necessarily mean that the depot at Canterbury will be enlarged. It might be possible to justify more than one depot for this very valuable work, if circumstances warranted such a course.

Mr. De la Bère: Will the Minister see that due credit is recorded to those who thought out this scheme and that their efforts do not go unrewarded?

Sir V. Warrender: The scheme was thought of and under consideration by the War Office some considerable time ago.

Mr. Paling: What is the cost of the scheme per week per man, and how long do the men stay there?

Sir V. Warrender: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

Mr. Bellenger: Does the Minister not consider that, in view of the large number of rejections for enlistment that have taken place, this scheme should be considerably extended so as to deal with the large shortage of recruits in the Army?

Sir V. Warrender: My right hon. Friend is very interested in this question. Inquiry is now being made to see how far it can be extended.

WOOLWICH ARSENAL (VACCINATION).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Secretary of State for War how many days' work has been lost by men who were compulsorily vaccinated at Woolwich Arsenal during 1936 and 1937; and was any wage paid to such men for loss of work through such compulsory vaccination?

Sir V. Warrender: While it is impossible to give the exact figure asked for in the first part of the question, half day rate, subject to the regulated deduction for National Health Insurance benefit, is payable for a period up to three weeks during sickness due to vaccination carried out in response to a general notice urging vaccination, or to a particular recommendation by the factory medical officer. The same rule applies to new entrants required as a condition of their employment to be vaccinated or re-vaccinated.

Mr. Kelly: Is there anything which states that some people may not receive that? While the regulation states that they may receive it, are any people excluded from receiving it?

Sir V. Warrender: I do not think so.

Mrs. Tate: In view of the fact that for many years now a larger number of people have died as a result of vaccination than from smallpox, should not compulsory vaccination be done away with?

Mr. Kelly: asked the Secretary of State for War what was the date of the regulation for compulsory vaccination of new entrants to the Woolwich Arsenal?

Sir V. Warrender: The regulation, which is of long standing, was reviewed in 1930. It provides that entrants who do not bear good marks of secondary vaccination or who have not had smallpox are normally required to be vaccinated, but that exemption may be granted to an entrant who makes a statutory declaration that he conscientiously believes that vaccination would be prejudicial to his health. In the case of an entrant under 21, who has not been previously vaccinated, a written statement of objection is accepted.

Mr. Kelly: In view of the fact that there has been no epidemic of smallpox or any of the other diseases with which vaccination is stated to deal, will the Department consider the abolition of it?

Sir V. Warrender: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is aware that a question on that point is to be addressed to my right hon. Friend to-morrow.

Mr. Mathers: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether soldiers, once they are in the Army, are allowed later on to exercise a choice as to whether they will be vaccinated or inoculated, although they have been vaccinated on their entry into the Army?

ELY PAPER MILLS, CARDIFF (ACCIDENT).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many men were killed in the explosion at the Ely Paper Mills, Cardiff, on Tuesday, and what was the cause of the accident?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend has received a preliminary report on this unfortunate accident in which three men were killed and two others injured, but he is not yet in a position to make any statement as to its causation, which will be the subject of an inquiry by the Board of Trade under the Boiler Explosions Act.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Miss Wilkinson: asked the Home Secretary whether, in arranging for the storage of gas masks for the civilian population, he is making any provision for their periodical testing to guard against their becoming ineffective through deterioration?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Sir W. Davison: Will individuals be allowed, if they so desire, to store their own gas masks?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. I do not think that would be technically possible, because gas masks have to be stored in two atmospheres.

Miss Wilkinson: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that these arrangements for testing gas masks are somewhat more effective than those carried out for finding whether they were effective originally?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that suggestion is a very unworthy one to make.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the fact that that statement is not based on my own authority but on the authority of eminent scientists, would it not be better if the Home Office took into consideration those scientists' views rather than merely cast aspersions on anyone attempting to put those views before the House?

Mr. Lloyd: I would remind the hon. Lady that the Home Office is advised by a hundred outside eminent scientists and that these experiments were conducted by a special sub-committee of the Chemical Defence Committee on the highest possible scientific authority.

Mr. R. Gibson (for Mr. Batey): asked the Home Secretary the number of gas masks provided for the county of Durham; and also the areas in which they are stored?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir provision has been made for about one and a half million respirators to meet the requirements of the county of Durham. A regional supply depot, which is expected to be ready about March, 1938, is being provided at Gateshead and the respirators for the county of Durham will be delivered there for transfer to store centres in close proximity to the population to be served.

Mr. Logan: Is the Home Office in touch with any improvements that are being made in gas masks?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, we are always in close communication with the Chemical Defence Committee, and any improvements of a technical kind are at once brought to the attention of the Home Office Air-Raid Precautions Department.

TAYLOR'S LAUNDRY, LIMITED, HULL.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary how many times the Taylor's Laundry, Limited, at Hull, have been fined for not protecting their machinery; whether he intends accepting the recommendation of the stipendiary, in connection with the case heard by him on Thursday, that a part of the fine should be paid to the injured person; and what was the amount of the fine inflicted in this case?

Mr. Lloyd: Apart from the case last week, this firm has not, I understand, been prosecuted for a breach of the Factory Acts. The penalty imposed was£75. As regards an award to the injured person, my right hon. Friend is making inquiries and is not yet in a position to reach a decision.

Mr. Thorne: Am I to understand from that answer that this firm, has not been prosecuted before?

Mr. Lloyd: Our information is that it has not been prosecuted before.

Mr. Thorne: If the hon. Gentleman will make further inquiries, he will find that what I say is true.

Mr. Lloyd: I will make further inquiries.

ARMED FORCES (GAS-MASKS).

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Home Secretary whether it has recently been


found advisable to change the type of smoke-filter in the gas-masks in use in the armed forces of the Crown?

Sir V. Warrender: I have been asked to reply. The design of the respirator in use by the armed forces of the Crown is the subject of continuous investigation, and improvements in the design of the filter are incorporated in new production from time to time.

Miss Wilkinson: In view of the fact that the Minister has now said that there have been improvements in the design of the filter is he aware that his right hon. Friend was saying previously that the filter was so good that it needed no improvement?

Sir V. Warrender: The Home Office and the War Office work in the closest co-operation with a view to producing the best possible filter. There is no perfection in these matters. If they can be improved, they will be so improved.

Mr. Noel-Baker: May I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, if improvements are obtained, they will also be incorporated in the civilian gas-masks?

Mr. Churchill: We might have an answer to that.

Miss Wilkinson: If there is no perfection in this matter, does it not mean that there is no efficacy? How can there be limited perfection in a matter of this kind?

POLICE COLLEGE (JUNIOR STATION INSPECTORS).

Mr. Kelly: asked the Home Secretary the number of those passing out of the Police College in 1936 and 1937 who were promoted to the position of junior station inspector?

Mr. Lloyd: Twenty-nine junior station inspectors passed out of the Police College during 1936 and 58 during 1937.

ROAD ACCIDENTS (OXFORDSHIRE).

Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to a report presented by the county surveyor of Oxfordshire to the county council on four years fatal accidents on the roads in Oxfordshire, showing that a special investigation was made

of the design and condition of the roads at the spot where each accident occurred; whether, as a result of this investigation, attention was drawn to many road defects which have since been removed; and whether he will suggest to other county councils that similar action should be taken by their respective surveyors with the object of reducing the risk of serious road accidents?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson): My right hon. Friend has studied with interest reports of the investigations which have been carried out in Oxfordshire with regard to fatal accidents on the roads in that county. A memorandum on the layout and construction of roads issued by my Department in January, 1937, drew the attention of highway authorities to measures which should be undertaken for enhancing public safety on roads and for reducing the number of accidents. Accident officers have been attached to each of the engineering divisional offices for the purpose of investigating accidents and cooperating with highway authorities and the police in measures for their prevention.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that where these roads have been improved fatal accidents have dropped to at least half the previous figure?

Captain Hudson: I am afraid that the answer which was given by my right hon. Friend last week shows that the number of fatal accidents in Oxfordshire has gone up and not down.

Sir G. Fox: But is the Minister aware that these fatal accidents did not take place at the places where road improvements have been made as a result of this investigation?

Captain Sir William Brass: In view of this very valuable report by the surveyor of the Oxfordshire County Council, has the Ministry sent any officer there to investigate conditions?

Captain Hudson: I should require notice of that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Prime Minister how far it is intended to go to-night?

The Prime Minister: We hope to con-dude the remaining Clauses of Part I of the Coal Bill.

Motion made, and Question put,

"That the Proceedings on the Coal Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 100.

Division No. 67.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Nall, Sir J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Apsley, Lord
Findlay, Sir E.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Furness, S. N.
Patrick, C. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Peake, O.


Balniel, Lord
Gluckstein, L. H.
Peat, C. U.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Petherick, M.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Bernays, R. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Blair, Sir R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Procter, Major H. A.


Blaker, Sir R.
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bossom, A. C.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Boulton, W. W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brass, Sir W.
Hannah, I. C.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rowlands, G.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Bull, B. B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Russell, Sir Alexander


Burghley, Lord
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Salmon, Sir I.


Butler, R. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Salt, E. W.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Salter, Sir J. Arthur (Oxford U.)


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Holmes, J. S.
Savery, Sir Servington


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hopkinson, A.
Scott, Lord William


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sellay, H. R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Shakespeare, G. H.


Channon, H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Christie, J. A.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Keeling, E. H.
Spens. W. P.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Levy, T.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S, G'gs)
Lewis, O.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Liddall, W. S.
Tate, Mavis C.


Cranborne, Viscount
Lindsay, K. M.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Crookshank, Capt. H F. C.
Lloyd, G. W.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cross, R. H,
Loftus, P. C.
Touche, G. C.


Crossley, A. C.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Crowder, J. F. E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Culverwell, C. T.
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Davies. Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Warrender, Sir V.


De la Bère, R.
Maitland, A.
Walerhouse, Captain G.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Doland, G. F.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Marsden, Commander A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Drewe, C.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Dugdale, Captain T. L
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Duggan, H. J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Dunglass, Lord
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Wood, Hon. C. I G.


Eastwood, J. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Moreing, A. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)



Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Elmley, Viscount
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Captain Hope and Mr. Munro.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V, (H'lsbr.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Ammon, C. G.
Banfield J. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Barnes, A. J.




Batey, J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Naylor, T. E.


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Benson G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Paling, W.


Broad, F. A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Parker, J.


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Cape, T.
Hopkin, D.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Charleton, H. G.
Jagger, J.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Chater, D.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Sexton, T. M.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Shinwell, E.


Cove, W. G.
Jones, J. J. (Silvertown)
Short, A.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Daggar, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Stephen, C.


Day, H.
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Dobbie, W.
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McGhee, H. G.
Watkins, F. C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacLaren, A.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Frankel, D.
Marshall, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Mathers, G,
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Decptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, R. G. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.

CIVIL (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).

Appropriation Accounts presented,—of the sums granted by Parliament for Civil Services for the year ended 31st March, 1937, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, and upon certain Store Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 16.]

REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (APPROPRIATION ACCOUNTS).

Appropriation Accounts presented,—of the sums granted by Parliament for Revenue Departments for the year ended 31st March, 1937, with the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor-General thereon, and upon Revenue and certain Store Accounts [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 17.]

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 14th December.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 20.—(Reserve Fund.)

3.59 p.m.

The Chairman: The first Amendment I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald)—in page 20, line 15, after "to," to insert "one quarter of." I am not quite sure exactly what the hon. Member means by it, but perhaps he will explain his intention and how it is connected with the other Amendments to this Clause on the Order Paper. Subject to anything that the hon. Member may say which may cause me to alter my mind, I suggest that we shall find it convenient, on this Amendment, to discuss the next Amendment on the Paper in his name, and the next two in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape), and a third Amendment in the name of the same hon. Member. On this Amendment I think we should discuss also the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), which might be called later for the purpose of a Division. In brief, I suggest that all these other Amendments should be discussed on the First Amendment which I shall now call.

Mr. Shinwell: Are you proposing to include discussion of the Amendment, on page 552, in the name of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape).

The Chairman: That is one of the Amendments which I had indicated. We could discuss that Amendment and all the other Amendments to the Clause, on the Amendment, which I shall call, in the name of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), with the exception of three Amendments in the name of the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Sir G. Ellis), and with the reservation that the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) may be called for the purpose of a Division.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I beg to move, in page 20, line 15, after "to," to insert "one quarter of."
The purpose of this Amendment and others on the Paper is to enable us to discuss the allocation of the surplus fund. On the Second Reading of the Bill we thought that the provision in this Clause was not satisfactory to the miners. If the miners are to receive anything from the Bill it is necessary to specify definitely what ought to be done with the surplus. Since we first saw the Bill we have felt that the scheme here is to some extent a piece of confiscation. In saying that, our point of view is different from that of the Government. It is true that the royalty owners are getting adequate payment for royalties, but at the expense of the industry. It is rather a piece of confiscation in an indirect way. We say that the miners should get something of a definite character. In our series of Amendments we suggest, first of all, the establishment of a pension fund for mineworkers who are over 55. We may be told that we ought not to differentiate in age between a pension fund for miners and a general pension fund, but we think that there is justification for that differentiation. Men in the mines age much more quickly than workers in other industries. They work under tremendous pressure in a mechanised industry. When a miner has laboured from 14 to 55 years of age in an industry which takes a great deal out of a man, a pension is a reasonable thing to demand. We realise that this surplus will not provide such a pension, but we want to secure here some nucleus of a pension fund for the miners.
I shall be surprised if the President of the Board of Trade says that, while sympathetic to our proposal, he does not agree with this method of providing the funds, and that ways and means ought to be found outside the Bill. I ask him to consider whether it is not advisable to make a specific provision for the miners in the Bill. Other parts of the Bill will displace the miner of 55 years and over, and we ought to make provision for these men to receive pensions out of the proceeds provided in the Bill. Our second suggestion is an improvement of the conditions of workers in the mines, having particular regard to safety. We realise that much money needs to be spent from a safety point of view. Some of us had misgivings


about putting in these words here, for we thought that this ought to be the responsibility of a State fund. Our last proposal is that provision should be made for dis-placed miners in general. Apart from the older miners, we think that the Bill ought to make provision for all miners who are displaced by the Bill. It will be seen that our proposals have a very humanitarian purpose. We say that if a surplus accrues from the financial provisions of the Bill, it shall be applied directly to the miners. The royalty owners and the coalowners will do very well out of the Bill, and we say that the miners should be provided for directly from the proceeds of the Bill.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Cape: The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) has accepted the suggestion as to how our Amendments should be dealt with, and I agree with him. I think it was a very happy idea, as it enables us to get a Debate on the principal Amendments to the Clause. We are anxious that in page 21, line 11, the word "shall" be inserted for "may." We want the Commission to have power for the purposes mentioned in our Amendments. We think that the Commission ought to have power to dispose of the surplus in a way that they think best, and not to have to consider whether they should or should not dispose of it. With regard to pensions for miners, I take a rather different line from that of my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment. Colliery workers get old very rapidly and at the end of 30 or 40 years work they are practically finished.
From the point of view of age and waste of physique, there is another matter to be considered. Suppose that a colliery finishes working, that it is abandoned for economic reasons. There may be at work at that colliery good practical men who can do any class of work in a mine. But they have reached the age of 50. Because the colliery has stopped such men have a very remote chance of getting new work. There will be numbers of younger men unemployed. For four jobs there may be six applicants, four between 20 and 30 years of age, one between 30 and 40 and the sixth the man of about 55. The elder man may be the best of the six, but the manager does not know it. He looks over the men and says to the two eldest, "We are starting only four men and we cannot start you two." That older man goes from pit to pit and

meets with the same treatment at every place. We want to create a pension fund so that once a man has finished work we can say to him, "There is a pension fund for you now." On those grounds and on the grounds stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince, I think now is the opportune time to create a fund for the purpose out of this surplus money, so that the men who have helped to create the wealth of the country may have the satisfaction of knowing that they will not be left in semi-starvation for the rest of their lives.
In regard to the question of safety, I have been for nine years a member of the Safety-in-Mines Research Board. A large part of the money which that board handle is drawn from the Miners' Welfare Fund; on paper it looks to be a pretty healthy sum and I know that it has been used for the purposes to which it was allocated. The Mines Department, through the Treasury, make a very meagre grant towards the work of that board, and I think it is a disgrace that the British Government should devote so little to the work of research in such a dangerous occupation as mining. We think that until the Treasury make up their minds to allocate more money to the work of this board some of this reserve money should be applied to this branch of research work. In those two ways the surplus fund which will come to the Commissioners could be used in a useful and humane fashion, and would prove of value not only to the mining community but to the nation as a whole.
Coming now to the question of the transference of miners, I have watched the mining situation for a good many years, and it is clear that some mines are gradually working towards their close. In my part of the country in 1925 there were 25 collieries and to-day there are only 14. Some of the pits which have been closed will never reopen, because it would not be worth anybody's while to reopen them. What is happening in Cumberland is happening in a good many other coalfields, and as the older coalfields decline it will be necessary to find new ones if we are to keep up the supply of coal to meet the demands of the country. Some new coalfields have already been found—in Kent and one or two other places. When these new coalfields are started miners will have to transfer from one mining area to another,


and we shall have to give the men some inducements to transfer. What I mean by "inducements" is this: Suppose we want 30 or 40 miners from one locality to go to another district. It is all very well to say that they will get a portion of their unemployment pay, and their train fare and other privileges from the Employment Exchanges.
That is not sufficient. Those men will have to leave everything behind. They will have to leave all their old associations; it will mean a break up of families. There will be a good deal of inconvenience. Very often, too, unforeseen things happen, and when they do those men will find themselves in a new world, practically speaking; they will be in new surroundings and having to rely on their own efforts to exist. In times of difficulty and distress when they were in the districts to which they really belong they always found friends and relatives at hand ready to help them. I think part of this fund should be set aside for the purpose of helping men in those circumstances. If the money which will be accumulated by the Commissioners can be used in the ways I have described the Committee will be able to congratulate itself on having done something useful.

4.21 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I understand that a number of Amendments are being discussed together on this Clause, and one of them which is on the Paper stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) and myself. This is one of the most important Clauses in the whole Bill, because it deals with the question—which also arises under Clause 21—of what is to happen to this reserve fund. Of course, it is always rather enjoyable to be in the position of "dividing the swag," which is what we are really doing now, and I suggest to hon. Members in every part of the House that we ought to avoid the danger of quarelling over the "division of the swag." First of all we ought to know from the Government how much money there will be in this reserve fund, and when it will accumulate, because as I see things it will take many years, perhaps 15 years, before there is any appreciable money in the reserve fund. Any demands which we may make regarding the allocation of the money in the reserve fund will have to be tested

by the amount of money there is in the fund after all the other claims have been met. Many of us are trying to decide what will be left over for the reserve fund; there are going to be many claims, and one is admirably presented in the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton and myself.
It will be within the recollection of the Committee that a very strong claim was put forward by the surface owners in relation to subsidence; they put forward an eloquent plea for some contribution from the fund. I feel we ought to know how much money there will be and when it will be available, and what advice the Government propose to give to the Commission, which, after all, must be governed from this House. We all have ideas on the subject and suggestions have been put forward that the money should be applied in research into safety and also in the provision of pensions for miners over 60. The miners who will be put out of employment when Part II of this Measure is put into operation have, in my opinion, perhaps the strongest claim to consideration, because this Bill is going to affect them. The question of pensions for miners at 60 is an old-standing one, and is really a matter for the coal trade itself, and should be dealt with by the industry as a whole, because I feel certain that there will not be enough money available under this Bill to create a fund to provide pensions for miners over 60. If we include them in this Bill people will say, "Oh, we have dealt with the miners over 60 out of this reserve fund, and therefore we need not deal with pensions for miners in the industry as a whole." There is a danger of that.
I think the greatest stress should be laid on the case of the people who may become unemployed owing to the operation of this Bill, because if the Bill is a success there are bound to be people put out of employment. The whole point of any amalgamation, either a voluntary or a forced one, is to create unemployment—however you put it that is what it really comes down to. Reorganisation means the closing down of various uneconomic units in the industry, however "uneconomic" may be defined, and that must give rise to unemployment in the areas where pits are closed down. This Bill is part and parcel of the method by which those men have become unemployed;


there is no doubt about that; and therefore, they have a very special claim to be considered in connection with this fund, but it is difficult to say how much the fund will amount to, when it can be drawn upon and what instructions will be given by the Government to the Commission. It is impossible for the Commission to deal with this matter themselves. They can only act upon instructions from this House to the Board of Trade, and we ought to know at an early stage if any instructions are to be given to the Commission to deal with this reserve fund on any of the lines which have been suggested by the last two speakers.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: When we were discussing an earlier Amendment to this Bill I referred to the royalty owners and the mineowners as robbers, and now my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) accepts the title without a blush of shame by- talking about "dividing the swag." We are concerned with where the swag has come from, because it is not the mineowners or the royalty owners who have produced it, but the miners, and we want to know whether the miners are to get any consideration. If by the waving of a magic wand we could cause the mineowners and the royalty owners to disappear tomorrow, would that mean the stoppage of the production of coal? No. The mines would go on working; the coal would still be produced. On the other hand, suppose by the wave of a magic wand we caused all the miners to disappear, though leaving the royalty owners and the mineowners, would there then be any wealth? No; there would be no swag then. The swag has been stolen from the miners, and we want to see to it that we do not get a repetition of what happened under a previous Measure dealing with markets, when everybody got compensation except the actual workers in the markets.
In connection with this Bill the greatest possible concern has been shown for the mineowners and the royalty owners but none for the miners. Take the case of the older miners. I wonder whether hon. Members opposite have given any thought to the tragedy it is to a man when he learns that they will not give him any more work. He has a wife and family to go home to and he wants them to be proud of him—every husband and

father does; but he has come to the stage when he is thrown out as scrap. He is cast out. I do not think hon. Members on the other side have ever had an opportunity of associating with such people and of getting from them all that it means in suffering—appalling suffering—caused not only by lack of suffer-and of food. There is terrible mental suffering when a man is thrown on the scrap-heap. The Amendment proposes to give consideration to such men, and it should receive the suport of everybody who has any human feelings.
Then there is the question of amalgamation. When the question of compensation arose in this House on a previous occasion and the Secretary for Mines was asked whether miners displaced by compulsory amalgamation could not be compensated, he said that the men would have no more claim to compensation than if they had been thrown out because of voluntary amalgamation. I chipped in and said that they should all get compensation, whereupon the Secretary for Mines said that I was the only one who held that opinion. I do not know why the Secretary for Mines should make such a foolish and unjust statement. Not one hon. Member on this side but is in favour of compensation for those who are unemployed not only as a result of compulsory amalgamation but as a result of voluntary amalgamation. If a provision were inserted in the Bill for compensation when unemployment arose as a result of compulsory amalgamation, the movement for compensation in the case of voluntary amalgamation would be greatly strengthened.
Apart from any arguments used by the Secretary for Mines or anyone alse in connection with voluntary amalgamation, the case for compensation arising out of compulsory amalgamation cannot possibly be denied. When we are discussing what is to be done with royalty owners and mineowners, surely it is asking only for elementary justice that the men thrown out as a result of amalgamations arising from the operation of the Bill should have some consideration and should get a little, anyhow, of the wealth that is being divided. I should not like to use here some of the expressions which were used on this side of the House about the Secretary for Mines when he made that foolish statement, but if he had


heard, or even read, one or two of the observations that were made about him, he would be careful never to make such foolish statements in the future. Every Member on this side of the House is in favour of compensation for miners thrown out of work, whether by compulsory or by voluntary amalgamation.

The Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that the Clause does not deal with compulsory amalgamation. I am not saying that the things which he has said were entirely out of order on this Amendment, but that there is no question of amalgamation at all on this Clause.

Mr. Gallacher: No, Sir Dennis, but this is an Amendment which suggests that a fund could be used for the benefit of those thrown out of employment as the result of the operation of the Bill, and that is the point with which I am concerned. On the further point of safety in the mines, I consider that safety is one of the most desirable objects to which any fund could be directed. I know there is need for higher wages and for pensions and compensation, but the vital thing for the miner and for the mining community is safety in the pit. I am sure that the Secretary for Mines will admit that the regular monthly inspections of workmen's inspectors are of very great help and have avoided many accidents and much suffering among the miners. Nevertheless, there is often much trouble to get a workmen's inspector appointed. If the Union does not agree to pay the inspector, the only way to do so is by collections at the pit-head. Is that the best way to organise safety in the pit? This system of workmen's inspections has extended very much in the coalfields of Fife, and a number of pits are inspected regularly every month. Reports are submitted to the Department in Edinburgh and have provided valuable information about conditions in the pits. These inspections have prevented the neglect of repairs which often lead to accidents of a serious character.
Although workmen's inspectors go down the pit every month at a number of collieries in Fife, they have to depend upon collections taken among the men. Surely that should not happen. Surely the system could be organised better than it is at present so that every pit in the country had its regular workmen's inspectors.

There are many directions in which the question of safety could be taken up and money spent. I suggest to the Secretary for Mines that special attention should be given to this important matter of regular workmen's inspections. There is no greater safeguard to the miners. I hope that the Amendment in which these matters are raised will receive the support of all hon. Members.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. Short: We have made several attempts during the progress of this Bill to introduce provisions which would benefit the working miners, but up to now we have met with very little success. I think it would be generally admitted, apart from the psychological appeal made by the principle of unification of royalties, that no material advantage is conferred upon the miners by the Bill. I heard it suggested just now by the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) that the Bill will ultimately lead to the displacement of many men by reason of compulsory amalgamation; that would be a perpetuation of the distress which already exists among the mining community. Nothing is likely to come the way of the miner in the disposal of the surplus. The hon. Member said, also, that it was desirable that the industry should make provision for pensions for miners. When Parliament discusses legislation for co-ordinating and amalgamating within the industry, and seeks to impose statutory conditions upon mine-owners and upon the mining community such as will change the relations between worker and employer, we are entitled to ask that that change should be accompanied by provisions to benefit those employed in the industry.
It seldom occurs to His Majesty's Government to make provision for compensating displaced workers, such as is bound to be the case under the provisions of the Bill, nor does it occur to them to provide pensions for workers at the age of 55, as is proposed in the Amendment. A very strong case can be made out for special treatment for miners as distinct from other classes in the community. The Mover of the Amendment referred to the arduous character and unnatural conditions under which they labour and which make them old at an early age. Another factor to which I attach importance and to which I should be glad that


the President of the Board of Trade should address himself in his reply, is that during the recent depression in the industry many miners have been out of employment for a very long time and have reached the age of 50 or 55. They are no longer wanted in the industry. Employers will not engage them. I have heard competent and experienced representatives of the miners say that when a miner has been out of the pit for four or five years he feels a complete stranger, if he is permitted to go down the pit again, because of the radical changes that have taken place in the methods of production.
Employers are taking the line to-day that they will not employ men at the age of 50, for fear that the changed methods of production may increase the risks of workmen's compensation. Evidence to that effect may be found in the report of the Unemployment Assistance Board, from which I propose to read extracts, and I shall ask the Minister what he proposes to do about it. I am going to tell him that it is no use telling us that the Bill will not make great changes in the industry. There will be changes, and they will not only affect the coalowners, but will also affect the miners. Their living is at stake, and, if Parliament interferes, we are entitled to ask that Parliament shall make provision for those who are affected. If you buy out the royalty owners, you must buy out the displaced workpeople or make provision for them by way of pensions at, we suggest, the very moderate age of 55. Let me read what the North-East England regional officer of the Unemployment Assistance Board says:
Statements from time to time appear in the Press suggesting that there is a shortage of skilled pit-workers in the parts of County Durham where the coal trade has improved. It is true (the Durham District Officer reports) that employers are finding it necessary to recruit men living some considerable distance from the pits, even although, from local statistics, there would appear to be no lack of suitable labour available close at hand. This is due to the fact that by no means the whole of the unemployed who in the past have worked in the pits are now accepted by employers as suitable for their present-day requirements. For example, there appears to be general reluctance to engage men over 50 years of age. … Some employers make their age limit much lower than 50. There is also reluctance to engagemen who, at some time or another, have been in receipt of Workmen's Compensation. If managers cannot obtain local men up to

their standards, they go further afield and skim the cream of the available labour over a wider radius.
The Committee will observe that he says; "if managers cannot obtain men up to their standards." It is not a question of their being up to any standard fixed by the Miners' Federation. This is not a matter that can be referred to arbitration and negotiation between the Miners' Federation and the Coal Owners' Association, This is the law adopted by the managers themselves to the detriment of the workpeople. No provision is made for the displaced workers. I do not know what the Secretary for Mines is thinking of. He has been in office for two years, and I do not recall a single thing that he has done by way of initiation on behalf of the miners. I have followed his career with great interest. I have watched him for the last two years, and, when I think of him as he was when he used to sit on the fourth bench below the Gangway opposite, with his high spirits and his measure of initiation, I am surprised that it is so lacking so far as the miners are concerned. I turn to another paragraph of the Report—that relating to Wales and the West Midlands. This is what the regional officer says:
It appears to be generally true at present that in all industries a man over 45 or 50 who has been unemployed for any length of time finds great difficulty in regaining employment, and this is specially true of the coal mining industry. It is not that such men have lost their willingness to work, but that they find the physical strain of the first few weeks in some cases too much for their strength, and employers are naturally apprehensive of the consequences of a physical breakdown which may involve questions of Workmen's Compensation.
He goes on to say that, if this practice continues, the matter will have to be taken up with the responsible coalowners with a view to seeing whether the practice can be done away with. We are asking that the right hon. Gentleman should incorporate in this Clause some Amendment whereby workers in the coal industry who cannot find work at the age of 50—and, indeed, some employers will not take them on even at a lower age than 50—will be provided for. This Bill seeks to put the industry on an efficient basis; the only justification for the Bill is the inefficiency of the industry; and we ask that in the Bill some provision should be made for the men who produce the coal, who produce this wealth in the interests of the trade and commerce of


our country. I shall be glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman will accede to our request, and I hope that, when he comes to reply, he will not overlook the evidence I have put before him, for it seems to me to be unchallengeable.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Peake: Having listened to the Debate this afternoon, and having a good deal of sympathy with several of the objects mentioned in the Labour Amendment and with some of the objects mentioned in the Liberal Amendment, I should like to explain to the Committee why I cannot support either of these Amendments in the Lobby. On the most favourable showing, there can be no surplus available under this Clause for at least 12 or 15 years, and it may well be 30 years before there is a penny in the fund which is available for disposal by way of surplus. I am a good deal more optimistic than some hon. Members opposite, because, if we are to have a pension fund for mineworkers, I hope we shall get it a good deal sooner than 15 or 20 years hence. Some concerns have already gone in for pension schemes, and I believe that pension schemes will be adopted very rapidly throughout the industry in the next five or 10 years. If, however, a Clause of this kind is put into the Bill, it will lead to the argument by the mine-owners, every time the matter is taken up, "Oh, that is provided for under the Coal Act of 1937"; and you may have to wait 15, 20 or 25 years before you get a penny piece of surplus out of the provision of this Clause of the Bill.
Exactly the same thing applies to safety measures. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) stressed the importance of a contribution for safety purposes and research into safety matters. That is a thing which, if it is needed at all, is of paramount importance, and we cannot afford to wait 15 or 20 years; we cannot afford to wait even four years until a fund is established for safety measures under the provisions of the Bill at the present time. Safety ought to be, and is, I believe, of paramount importance in the mining industry, and to provide that out of a fund of this kind—which, as I have said, may not have a surplus until 15 or 20 year's time—money shall be available for safety purposes, is simply fiddling with a grave problem.

Mr. Gallacher: It is not suggested that this fund is a fund for safety purposes. It is suggested that a part of the fund should be used for safety purposes. That does not mean that it is the only fund for safety purposes. We shall carry on in other directions.

Mr. Peake: Of course, this is not the only fund for safety purposes. We all known that the Safety in Mines Research Board draws very considerable sums of money from the Miners' Welfare Fund, and also by way of contributions from the Colliery Owners' Association; but the point is that, if money is required for safety purposes, it ought to be forthcoming straight away, and it ought not to be necessary to await a possible surplus in 15 or 20 years' time. The hon. Member for West Fife stressed the importance of workmen's inspections at the mines. I agree with him that they are of first-class importance; the more workmen's inspections of the mines that we have, the better. But, if the hon. Member says that because of the poverty of the mineworkers they cannot afford to pay two of their own men to go down the pits, I say that they cannot attach very much importance to inspection by the workpeople.

Mr. George Griffiths: May I ask the hon. Member what would be his estimate of the cost of employing two men to inspect a mine—a mine similar to that from which I came to this House—to inspect it properly?

Mr. Peake: It is a comparatively small sum. Two men go down the pit once a month and make a workmen's inspection. They do not inspect the whole pit, of course, every time they go down, but their inspections are just as thorough as the inspections of His Majesty's Inspectors of Mines. It is a poor reflection on the miners to say that they cannot afford the money for these workmen's inspections.

Mr. Gallacher: I did not say that the miners were too poor and could not find the money. I said that they did find the money. But I also said that it is not the correct method of organising the whole scheme of workmen's inspections to leave it to that haphazard method of collections at the pit.

Mr. Peake: It may not be the right way of organising matters for the miners to find the money for the payment of the expenses of their own Department, but it


is obvious that the carrying out of these things will be deferred until the Greek Kalends if we have to await the arrival of a surplus under this Clause. It is for these reasons that I oppose the Amendment.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there not some misunderstanding in the hon. Member's mind about this matter? We are asking, not that the whole of the annual surplus should be devoted to the building up of a reserve, but that only one-quarter of it should be so used.

Mr. Peake: But the surplus is struck after providing for interest and sinking fund charges. That is laid down in the Bill. Sub-section (1) of Clause 20 says that the annual surplus is to be arrived at after providing for interest and sinking fund charges.

Mr. Shinwell: Surely the hon. Member agrees that that is entirely dependent on the financial position? Surely he will not rule out the existence of an annual surplus after the first year?

Mr. Peake: Assuming that the Government borrow£75,000,000 at 3½ per cent., and provide for repayment of the loan over a period of 30 years, the surplus will be absolutely negligible. If, however, they provide for repayment over a longer period, say, 60 years, there will be an annual surplus of something like£1,000,000.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that the Government are actually paying too much for the royalties, and that their assets will not exceed their liabilities?

Mr. Peake: I do not want to get into a lot of technical financial details, but the interest on£75,000,000 at 3½ per cent. is£2,625,000 a year, and something over and above that has to be provided for sinking fund. If the sinking fund period is 30 years, there will be no surplus whatever. If it is 60 years, there will be a surplus of about£1,000,000 a year. That surplus has, first of all, to be devoted to the building up of a reserve. [Interruption.] It is obvious that you will not be able to borrow the money unless you provide for the setting up of a reserve, and if you provide for only one-quarter of the surplus going to reserve, it will take you 20 or 30 years to build up an adequate reserve. Assuming that an adequate reserve is

going to be established—and I think we have got to assume that, for the security of the stockholders—it will take five or ten years to build up an adequate reserve. Therefore, it cannot possibly be for a period of 12 to 14 years from the present date that any surplus will exist, on the most favourable calculation.

5.1 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I should like to read Sub-section (3) of Clause 20 as we desire it to read:
At any time at which the value of the reserve fund is greater than the prescribed minimum reserve, the Commission shall apply the whole thereof. …
We on this side have had experience of the word "may" in other Acts of Parliament. I remember getting up on this side and opposing on the Housing Bill of 1935, a provision that the Minister "may" contribute a certain figure to local authorities, and in another Section of that Act it states definitely that the Minister "shall." When the local authorities make application to the Minister of Health for a subsidy for building houses, the Minister has the power in his own hands. We on this side desire to delete entirely from this Sub-section the word "may," and to state that the Minister "shall." Then this Sub-section talks of "a part" but we are asking that the whole of the surplus shall be applied, and I should like whoever replies for the Government to tell us what that surplus is going to be. Are they expecting£1,000,000 or£2,000,000? We say that if they are expecting£1,000,000 or£2,000,000, that surplus for once "shall" go to the miners, because up to now nothing has gone to them.
We are asking that this money shall be provided for three purposes. The first is for a pension fund for mine workers over 55 years of age. While I was at home this week-end, I was looking up some figures, and I found from some returns that the men working in the pits between 55 and 59 years of age number 51,985 and that the men out of work between those ages are 22,914, or a total of 74,899 persons. Between 60 and 65, there are 31,529 working in the pits and 20,823 not working. Over 65 there are 19,347 working in the pits to-day, and 11,028 not working, making a total of 157,626 miners who would be entitled, under this Amendment, to a pension. We do not stipulate or state the amount of the pension. The


hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) stated that he was in sympathy with this idea. I believe he is composed of 100 per cent. sympathy.

Mr. Gallacher: And no cash.

Mr. Griffiths: I have never heard the hon. Member get up on any mining question, during the four years that I have been a Member of this House, without bursting with sympathy. I remember, when we were speaking about holidays with pay, that he agreed that the miners ought to have holidays with pay and that the coalowners would be better off if they had. I said to him, "Go thou and do what thou art preaching in this House," because in the hon. Member's pits they have not got holidays with pay yet, and I am sure that if he would put into practice what he is preaching and set the example in Yorkshire, so that their pits gave holidays with pay, there would not be so much trouble with the union as there is at present at the Central Hotel in Sheffield about giving the men holidays with pay.
In regard to pensions, at the pit that I came from the men have been getting pensions when they have ceased work, out of the men's wages, for the last 25 years. They have been getting 4s., 5s. and 7s. 6d. a week, which has come out of the wage packets of the men every week. Last year alone, at our pit, we paid out£4,500 of the men's money, not of the owner's money, by way of pensions. It was stopped off the men's notes, and it did not come out of "costs other than wages." We have not got holidays with pay yet, but our chaps are finding pensions for some of the men who are too old to work, and I shall be delighted to know that the pits belonging to the hon. Member for North Leeds are paying pensions.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member will appreciate that we on the owners' side also have certain trade union rules.

Mr. Griffiths: I will just say to the hon. Member that the devil will never die for an excuse. I will not say anything further than that. We ask that a portion of this reserve shall be given to pensions. The second purpose of our Amendment is very important. We say that a portion shall go towards improving the conditions of work in the mines, and I want to appeal

to the Minister that a portion of it shall go under Section 16 of the Coal Mines Act, namely, for workmen's inspectors. I know something about workmen's inspectors from a practical standpoint. I was a workman's inspector for 25 years, and when I was appointed an attempt was made to put fear into my heart from the manager's side. I was got into the office of the managing director, who walked in from one side, and the manager came in from another side, so that I was within closed doors, and they told me that it would be better for me if I did not become a workman's inspector. That was not in Germany, but in this country, in Yorkshire, in a strong trade-union county. I said clearly to both of them that I was going on with the thing because of the confidence that the men had in me. Not many months ago the same manager, who is now the managing director of the firm, turned round and said to me, "George, the workmen's inspectors are a safety valve as far as we are concerned."
Previous to that the present manager said, "The Government inspectors are never off our doorstep; they are always here. Why is that?" I said, "You know yourself that the workmen's inspectors' reports are what go to the inspector. When the inspector gets workmen's inspectors' reports, if there is anything wrong in those reports, he has to get back there as quick as lightning, because if he did not and anything happened, the rope would be round his own neck, you know that." The manager said, "The inspectors are at our pit oftener than at any other pit in the county of Yorkshire." If a portion of this sum went so that the workmen's inspectors could be paid by this fund, without altering the Act as it stands, that would be a good thing. Nobody knows better than does the hon. Member for North Leeds that they shall visit the pit, any part of the pit, once a month. If I visit one district as a workmen's inspector, I can go back to that same spot the next month. The hon. Member for North Leeds told us that if we paid a couple of workmen's inspectors to inspect a pit once a month, they could get all round it.

Mr. Peake: No.

Mr. Griffiths: But that was the way it was put across, and anybody who did not understand the matter would think they could manage it in that way. When I


was an inspector it used to take us six weeks to inspect the entire pit from beginning to end. We did it right enough, and we choose the part of the pit that we wanted to inspect. We did not let the manager choose the part that he wanted, and it took not less than six weeks to inspect the pit. If the inspectors were only getting£3 a week each, that would be£6 for two inspectors, or£36 for six weeks, and that requires to be done three times a year. If a pit is to be thoroughly inspected by workmen's inspectors, it requires to be inspected at least three times a year. What came out at the Gresford inquiry? It came out that that pit had not been inspected by the workmen's inspectors for, I think it was, three years. [An HON. MEMBER: "Since 1921."] If the workmen's inspectors had been able to go down that pit—nobody knows better than does the hon. Member for North Leeds that one reason at Gresford was fear. It came out, and it is no good for the hon. Member to shake his head. Another reason was that the colliery company would not stop it off the men's wages at the pit, although they desired that inspections should take place. That obtained not alone at Gresford, but it obtains at more than 50 per cent. of the collieries in Great Britain to-day. They will not stop a levy for the men to be able to pay their own inspectors.
We say that if this provision is inserted in the Bill, it will help the safety of the mines better than anything else. You can have your research and your committees, but our own men, who understand the work and who understand the dangers, should inspect the pits. The men who are working in the pit are the people who can smell danger more quickly than anybody else. It is all very well for the Secretary for Mines to smile at that.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I did not smile at that.

Mr. Griffiths: Well, the hon. and gallant Gentleman just smiled at the time that I got that out. As I was saying, they are the people who understand the danger in the mines, and we are pressing for that Amendment. The third part of the Amendment seeks to make provision for transferred or unemployed miners, but one or two of my hon. Friends desire to

deal with that matter. Now I come to the Amendment to insert the words:
For the purpose of advising the Commission as to the expenditure upon the purposes set out in the preceding Sub-section, there shall be an Advisory Board consisting of twelve members appointed by the Mine-workers' Federation of Great Britain.
If this is carried—it is in the direct interests of the workmen themselves; it is not in the interests of the coalowners for the time being, although it ultimately will be—we ask that, as far as these three Sub-sections are concerned, there shall be an advisory board of 12 persons appointed by the Federation to advise the Commission as to the expenditure of this money over the 12 months. Who would be more competent to do that than the men at the pits? I served on the South Yorkshire Committee for 12 years, and the Central Welfare Committee have repeatedly stated, with reference to the way the districts have been governed by joint committees, that the help the workmen's representatives have given has been of untold value. If the assistance of workmen's representatives can be of untold value in that connection, I suggest that it would be of untold value in advising the Commission on pensions, safety in mines and the transference of unemployed members.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: I am sure that anyone who has anything to do with coal mining, whether from the point of view of the miner or the colliery proprietor, is deeply interested in the question of safety in mines, and I should be very sorry to think that any of them did not realise that the question is one of paramount importance, and a problem constantly and prominently before all concerned in the industry. I am sure nobody on the other side would suggest that this is not a matter in which owners and miners are jointly concerned. It struck me that during the Debate we were rather talking about things which, as far as I can gather, will not materialise under the Bill. May I briefly recall the salient facts? We are going to spend roughly£75,000,000—£65,000,000 for royalties and£10,000,000 for other rights. If we assume, as I think we can, that this will bring in a revenue at 6 per cent. that is precisely£4,500,000. The Government will have to raise the capital of£75,000,000 by way of loan and, presumably, they can get


it by reason of favourable circumstances existing to-day at a rate of interest of, say, 3½ per cent.
That will mean that they will have to pay each year, by way of interest,£2,625,000, leaving a balance of£1,900,000 without deducting anything in the way of expenses and charges. But that is not all. The Bill says that, before anything is done with this balance, there shall be found all expenses plus capital repayments which are necessary for the raising of the stock. My hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is right in saying that before you arrive at the amount of cash available you must take into account the provisions imposed when the loan is raised in respect of terms of repayment. The yearly amount so payable (out of the£1,900,000) all depends on whether the loan is arranged on long or short terms. It is for the Government to decide whether the loan should be long or short. I quite agree that a long-term loan, from the point of view of the present condition of affairs, would be wise, but I desire to emphasise that the capital repayment each year would have to be met before any surplus is available. There is the£75,000,000 represented by the capital figure, and a considerable sum each year will have to be repaid. Thinking of the operation to its conclusion, the State is assisting by giving the weight of a Governmental guarantee in order that a loan should be raised. Assuming it is raised and repaid over 30 years, in those 30 years you will have raised from the revenue of the fund the whole of the sum necessary, and the State will be possessed of the royalties without having found one penny.
The purchase price is, in fact, actually found by the capital repayments each year. That seems to be absent from the minds of hon. Gentlemen when they talk about what to me is an imaginary surplus, because I do not think you can have a surplus in the years immediately after the Act comes into operation and at the same time repay the capital loan. The hon. Member asked, quite properly, if the President of the Board of Trade could give us any idea of the kind of terms the Government have in mind, and whether he has any estimate of the amount of the surplus which will be available for the purposes suggested by hon. Members opposite. I will only say that those are

purposes with which we are all agreed, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds is correct in saying that it is merely a gesture, and unless hon. Members are satisfied that it has any real meaning when translated into actual practice I suggest they are either deceiving themselves or labouring under a delusion in suggesting that there will be a substantial surplus to distribute. If hon. Members are suggesting, as they do today, that a non-existing surplus should be applied to help the miners, they are also misleading the miners, in building up hopes which cannot be fulfilled.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: It is a great pity we did not have this Debate in the initial stages of this Bill, particularly before the Division on the Amendment moved by my hon. Friends on this side to reduce the amount to be paid in a global sum to the royalty owners. Actually, hon. Members are saying now that this Bill is so framed, and the Treasury and the Government are such incompetent bunglers, that there is no hope of anything for anybody for 20 years.

Mr. Maitland: I dissociate myself from that at once, because I said specifically that what the Government are doing, by the arrangements embodied in the Bill, is to get for the State a very valuable asset, which will be raised from their guarantee and for which the State eventually pays nothing.

Mr. Griffiths: Hon. Members seem to be divided on that side, but in this House we have come to look on the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) as the official spokesman of that poor, downtrodden body, the mineowners. When he speaks, he speaks not only for North Leeds, but for the mineowners.[Interruption.] Hon. Members demur. I agree that when he speaks his accents are often more reasonable than those of the mine-owners as a body. Why did we go to all this trouble if there is to be no surplus of any kind? If all we are doing is transferring the royalties from one set to another, without relieving the industry of one halfpenny, what is there in this Bill; except, what we suspect, that it is merely put forward by pressure from various organisations to reorganise the coal industry in their interests? I am glad to find that that is the view of hon. Members opposite. But, at any rate, the


Government have provided for a surplus, and have not only suggested, but have laid down in terms of reference, definite instructions to the Commission, saying,; "If you anticipate that there will be a surplus, this is the way in which it shall be spent."
We accept all the reservations, that there may be more of a surplus or less of a surplus; but we assume that there will be a surplus, and, if so, we believe that the miners ought to have the first claim upon it. We do not anticipate that the present Government will be here for ever, and if there is a surplus at all we say that, first of all, it ought to go to the miners. The hon. Member for North Leeds said that whatever advantages came from this Bill, if there was a reduction of a penny or twopence per ton on the royalties, all of it would eventually filter through to the miners.

Mr. Peake: "Filtering through" was not my expression. That came from the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps).

Mr. Griffiths: I agree that the "filtering through" belongs to my hon. and learned Friend on the Front Bench, but the idea came from the hon. Member for North Leeds. All that my hon. and learned F'riend did, as was his province as a lawyer, was to filter the ideas as a result of his very able knowledge. We are asked to deal with this problem. If there is a surplus, how best can it be spent? Would it be to the better advantage of the men in the industry and the large community who depend upon the industry, if the surplus were used to cut off a halfpenny per ton here and there? Money that trickles back to the industry in that way has to filter through a very clever piece of mechanism. It has been my business to try and understand it, and, although I do not go as far as to say that I understand it now, I believe that I do. Since 1921 there has been a most complicated system of settling wages in operation—the ascertainment system. I do not know who claims the credit for having invented it, but it was an extraordinarily clever invention. It enables the industry to show substantial losses on the ascertainment and substantial profits on the balance-sheet. I remember in wage negotiations as President of the South Wales Miners' Federation, that whenever we were discussing wages we were told to look at the ascertainments; to look at the losses of

fivepence, sixpence and ninepence a ton. During one year the ascertainments were able to show tremendous losses, and in the same 12 months colliery companies producing 85 per cent. of the output in South Wales showed a profit of more than£3,000,000 in their balance-sheets. That is the wrong way to allow the surplus to filter through, as it enables a rake-off before it gets through.
This money should be used as a collective fund. If a million pounds were to filter back it would be lost, but a million pounds in one fund would be an enormous advantage. Would the Secretary for Mines, who is the Minister responsible to this House for the Miners' Welfare Fund, or would anybody, dare suggest that the penny which continued for a good many years, or the halfpenny now, which is due to the meanness of this House, had not been an advantage? The meanest thing done towards the miners, apart from the introduction of the eight-hour day during the last two generations, was the taking away of that halfpenny per ton, but I have read in the Press that the Secretary for Mines has issued a report which shows that, from 1920 to the end of November of this year, the total amount subscribed from the industry and pooled in the Welfare Fund was nearly£17,000,000. Suppose that that£17,000,000 had not been collected, and the penny or halfpenny had remained, who would have seen the loss of it, and who would have seen the gain of it?
Imagine what can be done with it when collected together in one sum. Let hon. Members come to South Wales and see the convalescent home which we have built there, through which 40,000 miners have passed from illness to convalescence and to the rejuvenation of health and spirits so as to be able to go back to work again. Let them come with me to Blaenavon and see the football ground cut out of the mountain side, or see the marvellous uses to which this money has been put through being centralised in one fund. The right and proper thing to do is not to enable this money to trickle back in pennies and halfpennies, but to centralise it in one fund and to use it in accordance with the suggestions which are made in the Amendment. We suggest that there should be an advisory board consisting of 12 members drawn from the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain to advise the Commission as to


how the money should be spent. Unless we are able to carry this Amendment, this will be the first Coal Mines Bill that has ever passed through this House without a workmen's representative having a look-in. There is not a single provision in the Bill enabling the men's representatives to have any say at all. The Secretary for Mines, before he introduced the Bill, submitted a memorandum to the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain outlining its main provisions and inviting them to make their observations upon it. But when the Bill came forward they were considered of such inconsequence and so little importance that they were given no place in it at all. We suggest, therefore, that representatives of the men shall be called in to advise as to how this money should be spent, and why not? Could any one give any reason why hon. Members should vote against that proposal?
There should be a pension for miners at 55 years of age. Mining has changed, and nowadays a miner at 55 is becoming old. In 20 or 30 years time he will be a very old man. The pace and the strain of modern mining are such that boys beginning work at 14 or 15 will, after 25 or 30 years' experience of this modem method of mining, be sucked dry. I have said this more than once to my own people and I have said it to my colleagues. I began mining at 13, and I know that some hon. Members on these benches began at an earlier age. I worked nine hours per day, seeing daylight only on Saturday afternoons and Sundays in winter, and to-day, if I were told that I must go back to the pit to work, I would prefer to go back to the pit of my boyhood and work nine hours than go back to the pit of to-day and work seven hours under the modern conditions of mechanised mining. There is no craftsmanship or outlet for personality. The coal-cutter comes in, and when you get there in the morning the coal-cutter undermines the coal and you are told to get it out or go out. The conveyor causes so much noise that one of the greatest guarantees of safety in the mine has been destroyed. Miners develop a quick ear for movements in the roof. When I and my hon. Friends here were in the mine, we could detect movements of roof in this way, and it was our best safety guide, and as good as any regula-

tion, and very often better. This is now of no use. What roof movement could one hear in the conveyor place?
It is because of these modern mining conditions that a miner at 55 is an old man. Is not that true? The Minister of Labour came to South Wales the other day and had to face this problem, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) has referred to-day. What did he find? He said that one of the gravest problems in South Wales is that of the unemployed miner of 45. No one will take him. He has been out of the pit for five years, and during the time he has been absent, the pit has been revolutionised. If he goes back, it will be to a new pit with new methods of working, and consequently no one will employ him. He is unemployable and unwanted at 45 years of age. If there are young men about no one will employ him. And at 55, who is there that will employ him? We have in South Wales nearly 50,000 men, of whom 30,000 are miners between 45 and 55 years of age. We are almost at the highest peak of the boom, and yet there are 30,000 miners of 45 and over. What a prospect. Unwanted at 45 with nothing to look forward to but 20 years of unemployment benefit or assistance, and a prospect of being cut down to 10S. a week when attaining the age of 55. All we ask is that the Commission shall be empowered to investigate the problem as to whether miners can be pensioned at 55.
When, during Jubilee year, I was President of the South Wales Federation and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) was Vice-President, we approached the South Wales coalowners for a day's pay for Jubilee day. We had a meeting and the coal-owners said, "We can do something better than give the men a day's pay." We replied that we would be very glad to hear their suggestion. They said, "We have calculated that a day's pay to all the men and boys employed in the industry in South Wales will amount to a global sum of£50,000. We propose, therefore, to pay this£50,000 into a fund to become the nucleus of a pension fund, and we invite you to accept this sum as a gift to a pension fund to enable us to retire some of the older miners from the industry in South Wales." We thanked them for the offer and we went back to our men. We said to our men that we


would not be outdone in generosity by the coalowners, and would go into the committee not as men going to administer charity, but as equal partners, and that we would find£25,000 ourselves. With this sum and the£50,000, the nucleus of a fund was started, and, beginning at the time that my hon. Friend and I were officers, and now being carried on very efficiently by those who have followed us in these offices, we are trying to work out a satisfactory pension fund for the miners in South Wales.
Suppose there were a surplus of£1,000,000—South Wales provides roughly one-fifth of the output of coal of this country—and it were divided collectively on that basis, there would be£200,000 for South Wales. Such a sum would convert the South Wales pension scheme from being a possibility into a certainty. Would it not be worth while to make that contribution to the South Wales coalfield rather than to allow it to dribble back in halfpennies or pennies on which there would be a rake-off, and to use it as one collective sum to help the miners?
I subscribe to all that has been said in regard to safety. I am disappointed at the amount of money and the time spent on research in this country, and I subscribe to every word that has been said about mines inspectors. Give the mining inspectors the right to prosecute as well as to examine breaches in the mine, and it would do more towards ensuring safety than all the regulations that could be passed in this Parliament for the next 20 years. I would press that the Commission should be empowered to spend some of this money on research.
I come from a coalfield which until the last ten years was always considered the safest in the country—the anthracite coal-field. The coal is of such a character as to make explosions practically unknown. The general conditions have been on the whole good. From the safety standpoint it has been one of the best coalfields in the country, but now conditions are becoming worse.
I attended a meeting in Ammanford recently to enable representatives of the Medical Research Committee, the representatives of the Ministry of Mines and the mines' inspectors to meet the men working at the Ammanford Colliery. A meeting of 500 men was called, and the

men invited me to go, in the first place because I represent that part of the anthracite coalfield and, secondly, what counted much more with the men and with myself, because that was the pit where I started work at 13 years of age. I went there and I heard the story. At this moment in the Ammanford Colliery 58 men are certified as disabled by silicosis. That means 58 sentenced to death. That is what it means. We know that those men cannot be cured because they have contracted this disease. In another colliery in my Division, at Ponty-berem, which is a beautiful Welsh name, a beautiful village is haunted by the fact that there are 62 men there who are disabled by silicosis—men sentenced to death.
I should like to see it possible for the Commission to spend some of this money in investigating safety problems of that kind. There are many problems. I see the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) present. In his coalfield they are developing the pneumatic pick. Some of us have seen them at work in the streets of London. Imagine using those implements in two feet of coal. Imagine the tremendous nerve strain. There is a great crop of problems arising through mechanisation in the pits. The pits are becoming dustier, and that causes silicosis. The pits are becoming noisier, and that is causing nerve strain. I should like the Commission to be empowered to spend money in dealing with some of these things. If the miners were offered tonight this choice whether, if there is a surplus—be it£5,000,£10,000 or£1,000,000—they would prefer that it should go into the ascertainment, so that they might get something in increased wages, which would also mean that the owners would get some of it, or would prefer it to be used as a fund for providing the benefits that we have outlined to-day, I am sure that every miner in the country would agree with the Amendment that we have proposed, so that the money could be used as a fund for providing the benefits which we suggest.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has made a remarkable speech. Every time he addresses the House he puts us all in the shade because he is in such close touch with the mining industry. I should like to refer to the speeches made by


two hon. Members opposite. Their remarks were not in antagonism to the scheme which we have outlined in our Amendment. They say that the money is not available, but if it were available the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) would be agreeable that pensions should be recognised. Their second point was in regard to the question of safety in mines. On that point I think they have misunderstood us. Our position is that wherever there is danger it ought to be put right without any delay. There ought not to be any question of waiting for money to be provided for that purpose. There is not one hon. Member on these benches who is not agreed that every danger in the mines ought to be dealt with at once. We do not want money to accumulate to deal with those points.
With regard to the question of pensions, I have had to change my outlook somewhat. For a long time I assumed that pensions ought to be given in a general way to every citizen at a certain time. I have had to change my outlook because of what is happening in the coal industry. The coal industry provides an example of what can take place under modem conditions, namely, the displacement of the older workmen to a far greater extent than in any other industry. To-day I asked for the figures of the number of men employed in the mines in 1924 and at the present time, and also the output per man-shift, and I find that in 1924 there were 1,000,000 men employed, whereas there are only 750,000 employed at the present time. That means that 300,000 to 400,000 fewer men are employed in the industry than in 1924. The output per man-shift, however, has gone up from 17 to over 23 cwt., which means that there is a greater output. It also proves that there is a greater speeding up than ever was known before in the industry.
That brings me to a point which confronts every miners' agent and representative when he has to meet the colliery owners. The owners refuse to take on elderly workmen. So long as they have not to displace anybody the elderly man is kept on, but immediately there is any displacement, the man who shows signs of age is dismissed. The owners say: "If we have to choose, we are going to

choose the younger men. We are not philanthropists, we are here to make the industry pay, and as the older men cannot keep pace with the younger men, they must go out of the industry." That is happening all over the coalfield, and because of that fact I have changed my view about a general pension scheme and have particularised certain industries, and the mining industry is one that ought to be recognised for pensions.
It is said that we do not know that there will be any surplus. That may be true, but if there happens to be a surplus, then the first provision that ought to be made from that surplus is to form a fund for pensions. Hon. Members opposite ought to support us in that. If, as they say, there will be no surplus, then there will be no case to answer, but if there happens to be a surplus and they are in sympathy with our object, then they ought to give us their votes in regard to the way that the money should be allocated. I hope that what has been said on these benches will make an impression on the President of the Board of Trade. I should like him to say whether there is any likelihood of a surplus and, if so, what the Government intend to do with it. If it is possible for any surplus to be created, then the first claim upon it should be a fund set up for mine workers who are displaced when a certain age is reached. We say 55, but we are not wedded to 55. If we could reach agreement on 60 years we should certainly accept it. In any case we think the money ought to be used in that direction.

The question of transference ought to be examined and if it can be dealt with there is certainly need for something to be done there. If people have to be transferred from one area to another through no fault of their own but because of the exigencies of the industry, something ought to be done for them. We approach the question of pensions and surplus, because we think that something more ought to be done for the mine-workers than is being done at the present time. We can find nothing in the Bill that is materially good for the mine-workers, and I hope that we shall get a response from the Board of Trade or the Secretary for Mines as to what will be done with any surplus that accrues. I hope that it will be used in the way outlined in our Amendment.

5.51 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I am sure that hon. Members will have been impressed with the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I cannot think that any hon. Member would vote against the Amendment if he followed the substance of the hon. Member's remarks. Most hon. Members must appreciate the fact that to-day the person who works the hardest in industry and is most productive is the person who seems to have least regard from the community. When we look at the Civil Service and the Police Force and large numbers of people engaged in sedentary occupations, we find that provision is made for them after so many years of service, but persons who are engaged in arduous and dangerous occupations are generally least cared for in society. Some day this House will have to face up to that problem. There is an ever smaller number of persons being engaged in productive industry and an ever increasing number engaged in the distribution of products. Some day we shall have to face up to that problem. In other words, industry is being over-weighted very much by people engaged on the distributive side. We find that the people who are not engaged in production as such but are fulfilling any essential part in the chaotic system of capitalism, are receiving substantial consideration at the expense of people engaged in industry.
We are putting up a case for men who are the most necessary in this country, men who are risking themselves and working as hard as, if not harder than, any other section of the community. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly referred to the attempts that have been made in South Wales to set up a pension scheme. Since I have been in Parliament I have received many letters from my constituents with regard to this matter. In Maesteg they have set up an Aged Miners' Pension Society, and for years they have been pressing their claim on the South Wales Miners' Federation and the South Wales Coalowners' Association. They thought that at last something would be done. They are always referring to the Jubilee offer of the South Wales coalowners, that they were prepared to advance£50,000 in order to start a pension scheme, but they have been very sadly disappointed with the result. They find that while the miners have been

prepared to pay an additional£25,000 and the contribution in many cases of 6d. a week, nothing has come of it. Frankly, the Miners' Federation and the coalowners found it was impossible to face the problem because, by the nature of the industry, the age limit is being reduced each year. If we took a census we should find that as compared with 10 or 15 years ago the age of the best type of miner working in the industry has been lessened year by year. The technique which has been introduced into the industry makes it impossible for persons over 50 years of age to keep up with the pace.
All those who have any knowledge of mining matters will know the enormous developments which have taken place-during the last 10 or 12 years, and a study of the statistics will show the increasing quantity of coal that is now produced by machinery. That is the trend of the industry, and there is a need for an ever-increasing number of virile men from 20 to 40 years of age. They are the only persons who can keep pace with the machine. It is the machine at the coal-face which determines the pace for the whole of the pit; the pace at which the haulage shall work underground and the winding gear. It is the pace at which the machine cuts the coal-face which determines the rate at which the coal must be got away from the coalface. Only young men can stand the pace, and this means that an ever-increasing number of persons between 40 and 50 years of age are being made redundant by the machinery which is now used in the industry. We suggest that if there is a surplus the President of the Board of Trade could not do better than authorise the Commission to consider the setting up of a pensions scheme and that a portion of the surplus should be made available for it. It is either that or these men will have to fall on public assistance in perpetuity. It is either unemployment benefit, supplemented by public assistance, or something in the nature of this scheme which will have to be provided to meet the ever-increasing number of men who are being made redundant in the mining industry.
We hope that the President of the Board of Trade will look favourably on the Amendments which deal with various aspects of this problem and that we shall


have a favourable reply. If it is pressed to a Division I hope we shall have the support of all hon. Members who realise the necessity for some scheme of this nature. The hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland) was really begging the question when he referred to the surplus. If there is no surplus there is nothing to distribute, but if there is a surplus then we say the exact proportions which should be used for specific purposes. I hope the hon. Member appreciates the fact that it is the mining industry which is presenting these royalties to the nation. The whole of the money will be found by the mining industry, not by the State. Surely, therefore, something should be done to help the miners who in our view are the most essential portion of the industry to receive something when they reach a certain age. We are not asking something for parasites but for men who have rendered years and years of arduous toil to the industry. The miners in the industry are presenting this sum of money to the State and the least the State can do is to see that persons at the age of 55 shall have provided for them such a portion of the money as will enable them to live more comfortably than they will be able to do if a pension does not come their way.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: I have listened very attentively to the arguments put forward that miners at 55 years of age should receive a pension. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) has said that 158,626 miners over 50 years of age are either at work or unemployed. Surely, a man who works in the mines from 15 to 55, 40 long years of arduous occupation, has done his share towards the prosperity of the community and it ought to be possible to pay him a pension. Up to the present it has not been found possible to give him a pension, and we think that there could be no better way of spending any surplus which might arise than by giving these men a pension. Less than 40 years is enough to qualify in many other occupations for a pension, and, indeed, the miners and the mining industry have to pay their share of the pensions for these other people. It has always amazed me that I as a school teacher who worked with my coat on should get a superannuation whereas the

man who works with his coat off is not entitled to any pension at all. I understand that the House is going to discuss the question of pensions for Members of Parliament. How dare we consider pensions for ourselves and vote against pensions for miners?
We are not asking this for people who have done nothing for themselves. The miners have done much for themselves. In the North of England there are the aged miners' homes, largely made possible through the contributions of the miners and the mine-owners. It is always a delight to see these old homes, and the old people living in contentment. In addition we have in the north what is called a permanent relief fund, inaugurated long years before any old-age pension was instituted. They are built up entirely by contributions from miners' wages. The fund has suffered through the depression in the coalfield. What could the Government do better than to supplement a fund like that, by inaugurating a pension fund? The miners have found the money for these things m many cases and are prepared now to do their bit towards a pensions scheme.
It would be a humane gesture if the Committee were to incorporate the Amendments in the Bill. It is said that God helps those who help themselves. Cannot the National Government help these men who are helping themselves? On the question of safety I know the wonderful work which the workmen inspectors have done. I could wish that more power were given to them to withdraw men from places which they consider dangerous and not have to wait until a report has been handed in. If the surplus could be used to provide more workmen inspectors it would be doing a valuable thing. I am glad to be able to pay my tribute to the miners of the country, although I am not a miner myself. I am glad to pay my tribute to their wonderful courage and heroism, and I hope that in the Division Lobby we shall have the support of every hon. Member who agrees with a proposal of pensions for the miners.

6.13 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): I am sure that whatever view the Committee may take on the series of Amendments they will be grateful. Captain Bourne, to your predecessor in the Chair for allowing them


to be discussed together, and give an opportunity for a Debate of great interest and comprehensive in character. The issue, of course, raised by the Amendments is of the first importance. We have dealt rather at large with the subject and perhaps it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I explained to those who did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), who moved the Amendment, exactly the difference between the scheme proposed by the hon. Member in his series of Amendments and the scheme of the Bill. Incidentally, there are in the drafting of the various Amendments certain technical difficulties to which I do not intend to refer. The object of the Amendments is quite clear and I shall treat them on their merits without any reference to any difficulties in drafting.
The changes which would be brought about by the Amendments are twofold. There is first a change in the allocation and method of allocation of amounts to reserve and, secondly, and more important, a change in the distribution of any surplus which may afterwards result. The hon. Member's scheme for dealing with the reserve is simple. It is that after the current liabilities of the Commission have been met, and its liabilities include that of a sinking fund, one quarter of the excess shall be applied to the reserve fund and the remaining three-quarters in every year shall be available for distribution. Our scheme is a rather more complicated one and I believe that financially it is a more sound one; but I will take this opportunity of explaining our scheme in some detail, because it is apparent from the speech of one of my hon. Friends that it is not fully understood. In Sub-section (1) of Clause 20, it is laid down that in the first instance any surplus remaining after the payment of these annual liabilities shall be carried to the credit of the reserve fund; but that rather bald statement is altered to some extent by the provisions that follow.
There are two things which the Board of Trade, in consultation with the Treasury, have to do. First, they have to prescribe a minimum reserve, and secondly, they have to prescribe an appropriation to reserve every year. Where I think there is some misunderstanding is in some hon. Members thinking that there is no possibility of any surplus being

available for distribution until the prescribed minimum reserve has been reached. That is not the case. We prescribe the minimum reserve, and we prescribe the appropriation to reserve, and that annual appropriation to reserve is then added to the annual liabilities of the Commission, which have to be met before there is any surplus available. But if hon. Members will look at Sub-section (1) of Clause 21, they will see that it is possible for the Commission at any time to make an estimate, and if it appears to them that their annual surplus for future years is likely on the average to exceed the amount of appropriation to reserve, then, if the minimum reserve has already been met, they can distribute the whole of that surplus; but if the minimum reserve has not been reached, they may distribute one-half. Therefore, it is clear that the Commission have not to wait until the whole prescribed minimum is "in the kitty" before it is possible for a surplus to be distributed. Consequently, there may have been some misunderstanding which tinged with such melancholy the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Maitland).
The hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) asked me to state here and now what surplus would be available, when it would be available and what the prescribed reserve was to be. I think the Committee will not expect me to answer those questions now. Hon. Members have been doing sums, and any hon. Member can do a sum in this matter as well as I can, because until we are in a position to say at what rate and in what conditions we shall be able to raise loans, and until we see year by year what are the returns that we get from the royalties, any estimates which one might give now as to what surplus might be available, and when, would be no more than hypothetical guesses. I would point out that we have been very careful in weighing the scales between the financial stability of this scheme, which is essential, and the earliest possible distribution of any surplus that could with safety be distributed.

Sir H. Seely: What I was asking was whether the right hon. Gentleman could give his opinion as to what the surplus would be. What are the Government aiming at? We have not heard from the


Government what is their idea as to what surplus there will be.

Mr. Stanley: The surplus will depend upon two imponderables, the interest charged and the sinking fund. Those will depend upon the conditions of the market at the time we raise the loan and the yearly receipts from the royalties, which to a large extent will depend upon the condition of the mining industry at the time. With regard to the prescribed minimum reserve and the prescribed appropriation to reserve, hon. Gentlemen will see that those are matters to be dealt with by regulations, which will be published and, in so far as they are prescribed by the Board of Trade, will be subject to the control of the House. I will pass now to the second part of the Amendments of hon. Members opposite, the part on which they laid most stress and to which I think they attach most importance; that is to say, the alteration of the destination of these surpluses as and when they accrue. Hon. Members opposite asked, as did hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, in a slightly different form, that the surpluses should be devoted to a certain number of extremely good causes. The distribution proposed in the scheme as it exists at present is set out in Clause 21, and I propose to deal with the respective merits, as I see them, of the two methods of distribution.
The three main objects to which, by the Amendments of hon. Members opposite, the surpluses would be devoted are pensions, safety in the mines, and compensation for displaced workmen. Naturally, with none of those three objects can any one quarrel. However, there is something that I would like to say on each of them. First of all, on the question of pensions, I think hon. Members opposite have been touching on a subject very much wider than that of this Clause, a subject which is growing in importance, as we all know if we try to follow the vital statistics of the country and project our minds to the next generation and see what a different country, from the point of view of age distribution, this country will be. No one can deny that the question of pensions, whether for certain groups of workers or for all workers, whether at the age of 50, 55 or 60, is a matter of great and growing importance, but as the hon. Member who moved the

Amendment said, nothing that this Commission could do, and no fund which the Commission would have at its disposed, would alone solve the problem. It could be nothing more than a contribution to whatever scheme there might be. Whether it were a scheme within the industry or whether, in distant years there might be some State scheme—whatever it might be—this could be no more than a contribution. The question is an important one. I am encouraged by some remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) to think that its importance is recognised inside the industry' itself, and that, as in many other industries where perhaps the conditions are not even as urgent as in this one, discussions will take place for dealing with the problem. But I do not think any sporadic contribution which a Commission of this sort could make year by year, as its surplus rose or fell or disappeared, would be in any way a safe foundation upon which such a scheme, however desirable in itself, could possibly or properly be based.
With regard to safety, I must confess that, in listening to the speech of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, I felt that, even if the whole range of objects was one that ought to be accepted, as compared with the scheme of the Bill, this one would have very great dangers. I rather thought that, as the hon. Member put it, the proposal was, that the onus of providing safety would be taken away from those on whom it should properly fall, that is, the owners working the pits, and that the contribution of the Commission should in some way relieve them of the expenses which they ought properly to incur in carrying out safety provisions in the pits. As the discussion proceeded, however, I realised that I had misunderstood the proposal, and that it really amounted to two specific objects, one of them being the payment of workmen's inspectors and the other research. The question of workmen's inspectors is an interesting one, with which several hon. Members have dealt with the additional interest which personal experience always gives to arguments in the House; but I think it is a subject which we must leave for decision by the Royal Commission which is considering, among other matters, this very question. I think it would be wrong to take a matter of this sort out of the general question of safety and hang it on to this scheme.
As regards research, which is an equally important matter, and in connection with which the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), in a very able speech, referred to modern developments, I would point out that at present the greater part of the cost of research is borne by the Miners' Welfare Fund, although the Secretary for Mines has power to make, and already makes, contributions for the purpose of research. Under this scheme, nothing could be available for at least five years. [Interruption.] I was going on to say that in the early years of the scheme, the amount available might be small or even negligible. Surely, it is not right that, if work of this sort is indeed starved for money, there should be any question of waiting for a scheme such as this to put it right.
Funds are already available and I do not believe there is any ground for the statement that research to-day is being starved for money. On the particularly important point of silicosis to which the hon. Member opposite referred, research, I understand, is proceeding and I have not heard that it has been hampered or delayed because there is not sufficient money for it. But the point I wish to make is that if there is a case for saying that research to-day is hampered by lack of funds, and that inquiries into an important point of that kind are not being brought to full fruition because there is not the money to do so, then the remedy lies among other lines, and will be achieved by other and simpler and quicker methods than those proposed.
With regard to the question of compensation in respect of compulsory amalgamations, a great point was made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Short) that as the State was, under Part II of the Bill, in a certain sense pressing these amalgamations, so the State should be responsible for the consequences. That is not a subject which I wish to discuss at any length on this Amendment because it seems to me that the appropriate place for such a discussion is on Part II. Whatever one's views may be as to whether compensation is properly payable or not as a result of compulsory amalgamations, this, to me, at any rate seems self-evident. If such compensation is to be paid, it should be part of the scheme of amalgamations. It should be one of the factors to be

weighed in deciding whether a scheme is a good scheme and in no circumstances could it be right to spread these costs over the industry as a whole.

Mr. A. Jenkins: On a point of Order. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how on Part II of the Bill we shall be able to deal with the question of compensation for displaced miners if Clauses 20 and 21 have been passed?

Mr. Stanley: I notice that the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) has an Amendment down which raises the question.

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, but will that Amendment be called?

Mr. Stanley: That I cannot say.

Mr. Jenkins: In view of the doubt which exists about the possibility of discussing effectively on Part II the question of compensation for displaced miners, will the right hon. Gentleman now express his opinion on that point?

The Deputy - Chairman (Captain Bourne): At the moment I have not considered Part II of the Bill at all, but obviously if we discuss the question at any length now, it will not be open to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) to move his Amendment later.

Mr. Stanley: I suggest that in any case even if that Amendment is not called that it will be possible to raise the point either on the question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" or on a proposal to leave out one of the Sub-sections. I wish, in conclusion, to say that I believe that the methods which we have provided in the Bill for the disposal of this surplus are preferable to the other methods proposed. This Commission is primarily charged with the management of leases and the receipt of royalties for them and we believe that the first charge upon any surplus which the Commission has available should be that of removing inequalities for which the Commission itself assumes responsibility.

Mr. MacLaren: On a point of Order. Will any statement which is made by the right hon. Gentleman now cut across the discussion on Clause 21 of the Bill? It seems to me that we are now entering


upon a discussion of the elements of that Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: The position is rather difficult, but obviously if we discuss now matters which are in Clause 21, the discussion on that Clause when we reach it must be correspondingly restricted. I have not heard the whole of the Debate and I do not know how widely it has gone, but I think that if the Committee desire to have a discussion on Clause 21 they should wait until we reach it.

Mr. Stanley: I shall certainly respond to that Ruling. I shall simply say that I consider that the methods set out in Clause 21, which, no doubt, we shall be able to discuss when we reach that point, seems to me to be preferable in the long run to the method proposed in this Amendment. When we get to Clause 21 I think I shall be able to show that the method there proposed will tend in the long run to the greater efficiency and stability of the industry; and I hope I shall be able to make it clear that it will eventually provide the industry with sufficient economic relief and economic improvement to make easier, if it is thought desirable, the bringing into effect of some of those very things to which hon. Members opposite have been referring in the course of this discussion.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman has effectively disposed of the principal objections raised to the Amendment moved and supported by my hon. Friends. It is clear that a surplus is automatically provided for and that that surplus, although related to the prescribed minimum reserve, is something quite other than the reserve provided for either in Clause 20 or in Clause 21. One thing is clear beyond the possibility of doubt. A surplus is assumed by the right hon. Gentleman and the question which we have to consider is whether part of that surplus—three-quarters of it in the judgment of my hon. Friends—should be devoted to improving the conditions of the miners and providing for men who are displaced, or should be devoted to other purposes. That is the simple issue before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that the primary purpose of the Commission was to grant leases. That is

true, but he will recall that when we were discussing Clause 2 it was made clear that leases were to be granted only in so far as they promoted efficiency in the industry, and I take it that at least one of the prime purposes of the Commission will be to reorganise the industry on the basis of greater efficiency. We on this side cannot dissociate the conditions of the workers from the efficiency of the industry. The two questions in our view are closely related and that is the reason for these Amendments.
The right hon. Gentleman said that no money would be available, in any case, for at least five years. That of course is true because the Measure will not begin to operate for some years. He argued, therefore, that there was no advantage in discussing the question of research. He seemed also to argue that there was little advantage in considering the questions of pensions or compensation for displaced miners. It will be noticed that the right hon. Gentleman's view as to money being available after five years had reference to the opinion expressed by hon. Members on this side as to the disposable surplus the next 30 years. It is clear that their views were unduly pessimistic and that the financial future of the Commission is rosier than they imagined. It may be true that for five years little can be done either in promoting research or improving the conditions of the miners. But surely in spite of all the schemes that may be promoted in the interim period, it is not expected that the industry will have fully equipped itself as regards research in five years. Surely research will be required when the Commission has begun operations. Over and above that it will not be disputed that within the next five years under this Measure, it is unlikely that the condition of the mineworkers will have improved. Therefore we must look ahead. We must take the long view.
What is to happen when the Bill has become operative and has been operating for some years? Taking that standpoint I submit that the right hon. Gentleman has not faced the realities of the situation. The main issue before the Committee is the question of whether this Bill provides, among other things, for any substantial improvement in the conditions of the workers in the industry. If we accept the right hon. Gentleman's version, no improvement whatever under this Bill is


assumed. At all events it is a very remote assumption. It is just as hypothetical as the amount required for the prescribed minimum reserve upon which the right hon. Gentleman did not make himself too clear—though I do not wish to argue that point now. But our submission is that in view of the declared intention of the Government and their desire to promote efficiency, they cannot leave out of their calculations the need to provide some benefit, even of a lesser kind, for the mineworkers.
I come to what I regard as the substantial issue. It is that of the proposal to provide a pension fund. I agree at once with the right hon. Gentleman that this is not a way of solving the problem. The question of pensions is a much wider problem than the suggestions of my hon. Friends are capable of solving. They recognise that fact and this is a very modest proposal. In effect, all we ask is that out of the surplus of which the Commission is in possession, a sum—it may be small or comparatively large—should be devoted to establishing the nucleus of a fund, it may be a supplementary pensions fund. If we are to deal with the general question of pensions clearly, sooner or later, there must be a comprehensive scheme not for miners only but for every worker in the country. But in the meantime it is permissible to propose that there shall be a pension scheme for mineworkers within the industry itself backed up, it may be, by some State assistance. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should not rule that out of his calculations.
I want to narrow the issue as it has been narrowed in this Amendment. There is, in spite of a boom period in the mining industry, considerable competition among the workers for employment, and it presses very heavily on the older workers above 45. It sometimes happens that a man of 65 remains at the pit although he is in receipt of a pension of 10s. a week from the State. If that man had his pension supplemented by a pension fund it might induce him to make way for someone not so old and just as valuable to the industry as he is. Therefore, if we are concerned about limiting the field of competition in labour, this is one one of the most valuable means of undertaking that desirable task.
I come to the question of the displacement of labour. We have heard many

speeches from hon. Members behind me, including an eloquent speech by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths). I cannot add to what they have said; they spoke with well-informed minds on the subject and said all that requires to be said on the matter. It will not be denied that the Government contemplate the displacement of labour under this Bill, to put it no higher than that. It is implicit in the Bill. It has been mentioned by the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely), and it has been admitted by the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who knows the mining industry very well; no Member is better informed from the mineowners' standpoint. There is general agreement that sooner or later there will be rapid displacement of labour in the industry. Will the right hon. Gentleman direct the attention of the Committee to any provision in the Bill which provides the remedy, or even a partial remedy, for that displacement? There is no such thing. There is not a line or a Clause or a Sub-section in the Bill—

Mr. Stanley: Will the hon. Gentleman do the same service to the Committee with regard to the Act of 1930?

Mr. Shinwell: I am bound to say that I do not see the point of that interruption. If the right hon. Gentleman wants, sometime during the passage of this Bill, to debate what happened in 1931, no one will be more ready than me to take him on, but I do not think that this is the opportune moment and I shall not yield to the temptation at this stage. There is a great deal to be said about the Act of 1930 which has not been said in this House and may require to be said one of these days. I will only say that there was as much responsibility on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends behind him as there was on the Labour Government in 1930. I hardly think that he will deny that.
I was putting the point which I believe is eminently reasonable and will be acceptable to the right hon. Gentleman, however unpalatable it may be to those in the industry, that there is bound to be displacement of labour in the industry. What provision is made for it? None whatever. This is the first attempt that has been made—and it is being made by my hon. Friends—to provide some measure of partial relief for whatever displacement may


occur. I want to come to a point that so far appears to have been overlooked. The mineworkers are not asking for anything to which they are not entitled. If provision is made in the Bill to provide out of a surplus fund for the improvement of miners' conditions, the bulk of it will come out of miners' wages. If the rents remain as they are—and I take it that it is the object of hon. Members opposite to reduce the rents—the miners will have charged against the ascertainments the cost of royalties. They pay for that. If, on the other hand, rents are reduced, in due course the charge against the miners will be or may be correspondingly reduced. It is difficult to say whether it will be, for the miners do not control the industry. If they are reduced, the miners may gain slightly, but surely it is much better for the miners to have a direct measure of relief which they can understand rather than an indirect measure which is problematical and depends on a great many contingencies and circumstances and is not in their hands to control. That is the case that has been presented by my hon. Friends.
The right hon. Gentleman has been persuasive but unreasonable in his conclusions. He agrees with us that there is to be money that can be devoted to some purpose or other. We put it to him that, if there is to be a surplus, part of it—we are not asking for the whole of it—should be devoted to help the miners. It need not interfere with the prescribed minimum reserve. If part of the surplus is used in this way the miners will be able to say that they have obtained some

benefit out of this Bill which the mining industry has not hitherto afforded. Against our case the right hon. Gentleman has taken refuge in asides, hypotheses, assumptions and an inconclusive summing up of the position which is unjustifiable in the circumstances. If the right hon. Gentleman stands by his guns and refuses to give way, it is clear that the miners can look forward to nothing out of this Bill.

I am not going to discuss Part II at this stage, but I will say that if the right hon. Gentleman opposes this Amendment and deprives the mineworkers of an opportunity of utilising a part of the surplus, all the eloquence of my hon. Friends and all the arguments they have put up, no matter how strong their case in support of some measure of reorganisation by a displacement of labour under amalgamation, will be of no avail. The right hon. Gentleman will then tell us that he agrees with us that something must be done to deal with the displacement of labour, but that unfortunately there is no money. In order to prevent him adopting that method when we come to Part II, I suggest that he should advise his hon. Friends to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald). If he does so, it will not only relieve the position of the mineworkers but make it easier for the Commission in future.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 115; Noes, 199.

Division No. 68.]
AYES.
[6.58 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Dobbie, W.
Hayday, A.


Adamson, W. M.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Ammon, C. G.
Ede, J. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Banfield, J. W.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Hopkin, D.


Barnes, A. J.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)


Batey, J.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Kelly, W. T.


Bellenger, F. J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Benson, G.
Foot, D. M.
Kirby, B. V.


Bevan, A.
Gallacher, W.
Lawson, J. J.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Gardner, B. W.
Leach, W.


Buchanan, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lee, F.


Burke, W. A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Leonard, W.


Cape, T.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Leslie, J. R.


Charleton, H. C.
Grenfell, D. R.
Logan, D. G.


Chater, D.
Griffith. F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
McEntee, V. La T.


Cooks, F. S.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
McGhee, H. G.


Cove, W. G.
Groves, T. E.
MacLaren, A.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
MacNeill Weir, L.


Daggar, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Hardie, Agnes
Marshall, F.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Maxton, J.




Messer, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.
Tinker, J. J.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sexton, T. M.
Walkden, A. G.


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Shinwell, E.
Walker, J.


Naylor, T. E.
Short, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Oliver, G. H.
Silkin, L.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Paling, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Parker, J.
Smith, E. (Stoke)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Price, M. P.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Stephen, C.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Ridley, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Ritson, J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Young, Sir R. (Nawton)


Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Thorne, W.



Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Thurtle, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Anderson.




NOES.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Albery, Sir Irving
Goldie, N. B.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Gower, Sir R. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Peake, O.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Peat, C. U.


Assheton, R,
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Blaillie, Sir A. W. M.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Petherick, M.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Non. J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ramsbotham, H.


Balniel, Lord
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rayner, Major R. H.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T P H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bernays, R. H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D H.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Bossom, A. C.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Boulton, W. W.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rowlands, G.


Bracken, B.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Higgs, W. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Bull, B. B.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Butler, R. A.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Holmes, J. S.
Salt, E. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Hopkinson, A.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Savery, Sir Servington


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Scott, Lord William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Selley, H. R.


Channon, H.
Hunter, T.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Christie, J. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Lees-Jones, J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Levy, T.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Liddall, W. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lindsay, K. M
Sutcliffe, H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lloyd, G. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cross, R. H.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Crossley, A. C.
Loftus, P. C.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Crowder, J. F. E.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Touche, G. C.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lyons, A. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
McCorquodale, M. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


De la Bère, R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Denman, Hon. R. D.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Denville, Alfred
Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Doland, G. F.
McKie, J. H.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Warrender, Sir V.


Drewe, C.
Macquisten, F. A.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Maitland, A.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wells, S. R.


Dunglass, Lord
Markham, S. F.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Errington, E.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Everard, W. L.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Findlay, Sir E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.



Fleming, E. L.
Munro, P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Nall, Sir J.
Major Sir James Edmondson and


Furness, S. N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Mr. Grimston.


Fyfe, D. P. M.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)

7.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel R. S. Clarke: I beg to move, in page 20, line 36, to leave out "minimum."
I hope that it will be in order if, in moving this Amendment, I touch also on the two following Amendments in; the name of my hon. Friends: In page 21, line 8, at the end, to insert:
Provided that no appropriation to reserve shall be made of any amount which would cause the value of the reserve fund to exceed the prescribed reserve.
And in line 9, to leave out Subsection (3).
A number of suggestions have been made this evening as to how the Commission should spend such surplus as they may derive from their trusteeship of royalties. I think we have heard most of those suggestions with Sympathy, and I do not think we could have listened to the speeches from hon. Members opposite, particularly that of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), without a feeling of sympathy, but the President of the Board of Trade has indicated that the purpose he has in mind in the disposal of this surplus is definitely the systematic reduction of royalties and, possibly, their final extinction. Such a course would be for the benefit of all connected with the industry, both owners and miners, and consumers as well. Our object in moving these Amendments is to obtain as much benefit from those reductions as we can, and to obtain it as soon as possible. The President has given us a very reassuring statement that there will be some surplus available to spend in the future when the Commission come into operation, and we respectfully suggest that acceptance of these Amendments would help in the task of its disposal. While quite realising the importance of creating a really effective reserve, we wish to keep the allocations to that reserve as low as possible, to fix that reserve at a definite figure and to suggest that that figure should be rather a maximum than a minimum figure.
Lastly, we do not wish to see two different forms of sinking fund provided. With that object we have put down the Amendment to delete Sub-section (3). We see a danger there that at some future time, if there were just a small balance, possibly the officials might think that it was not worth while to use it for the reduction of wayleaves or royalty rents

and that it would be a good deal simpler to go into the market and buy stock and cancel it. We suggest that if that were done the benefits which we hope to receive from the work of the Commission would be postponed almost indefinitely, at any rate for a very long time indeed. Lastly, we consider that these Amendments are particularly important, because, as many hon. Members have said, the surpluses each year cannot be large, and we fear that unless everything that can possibly be turned into those channels is devoted to them we shall see very little benefit.

7.8 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel H. Guest: I beg to support the Amendment and also the other Amendments on the Paper upon which my hon. and gallant Friend has touched. The first one proposes to leave out the word "minimum." I foresee the possibility that many years may elapse before a prescribed minimum reserve is built up, and that being so it must prevent any possibility of the remission of royalties.

Mr. Stanley: I do not want to interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, but I have explained the misunderstanding that it is impossible to make any reduction under Clause 21 until the whole of the minimum reserve is established.

Lieut.-Colonel Guest: I apologise. I think the right hon. Gentleman's speech was the only one which I did not hear. The other two Amendments raise somewhat similar points and concern the annual appropriations. We want to leave out an annual appropriation, because we do not think it necessary that there should be any annual appropriation which is more than is actually required for the purpose of the sinking fund of the loan. We feel that that is the limit of the appropriation which should be permitted in any one year. Equally, we feel that, as my hon. Friend has said, to have this double sinking fund, that is, to create a sinking fund and at the same time buy back stock in the market for the purpose of the reduction of the loan, would put on the immediate future a responsibility which should be spread over a long number of years. It would mean that there could be little remission of royalties while those excessive charges on the fund were in force. The whole motive of the Bill is to see that the royalties are


remitted or reduced at the earliest possible date, and we do not want a long period to elapse before those remissions begin, because the colliery owners cannot get any advantage unless some remission of royalties takes place, and certainly the miners can get nothing unless those remissions are brought into force as early as possible.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: To some extent I covered these points in the reply which I made in the earlier Debate, but the present Amendments are designed to make a much less drastic alteration than the previous Amendment in the provisions for the reserve which have been laid down in the Bill. Frankly, I think that the desire of hon. Members to effect these alterations depends to a large extent upon a misunderstanding of the terms of the Bill. I hope that I have removed the misunderstanding of my hon. and gallant Friend that it is impossible to make any reduction under Clause 21 until the whole of the minimum reserve is established. As I explained before, that is not so. Secondly, I think the Mover was under a complete misapprehension when he spoke about the provisions of Sub-section (3) being, in effect, a double sinking fund, as though Sub-section (3) were to assume such importance that it would be a rival almost of the sinking fund already dealt with in Sub-section (1). That, of course, is not the intention of Sub-section (3), if he notes the provisions for the reviews after which some disposal of surpluses is made, he will realise that, however careful such reviews may be, however near may be the estimate, no one can be quite certain that at the end of the year the amount of reduction which has been given under Sub-section (2) will exactly equal the amount of surplus which would actually accrue. For that and other reasons there will be from time to time casual sums reverting to the reserve, bringing it, perhaps, above the prescribed minimum, and we feel that in such circumstances the Commission should have the option to decide whether it suits them best, from the financial point of view, to go on with those casual surpluses as part of the reserve invested in Government stock or to use those casual surpluses for the purchase and redemption of their own stock. Surely that is a matter of business on which the Commission should have the option to decide.
I cannot help feeling that a great deal of the apprehensions lying behind these Amendments come from a failure to realise the very great flexibility which there is in the arrangement proposed in the Clause. The hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment spoke rather as though not only was the prescribed minimum reserve good for all time but as though the prescribed appropriation to reserve was good for all time, and that we should, therefore, see the spectacle, when the minimum had already been reached, that this annual appropriation would automatically come to an end. That is, of course, not so. It is open for either this minimum reserve or the appropriation to be reviewed at any time and, of course, it is possible that, if the minimum reserve had been reached and the Board of Trade or the Treasury thought there was no reason to have a greater sum standing to reserve than the prescribed appropriation, it could be reduced to a purely nominal figure.
I think I can do no more than assure my hon. Friend that it is our intention to hold the balance fairly between having a sufficient reserve to ensure the stability of the fund, depending as it does upon an industry which is subject sometimes to great depression and which, therefore, does need a certain reserve behind it, and the earliest possible distribution of any surplus which there may be over that reserve. There is no intention of using the fund in order to overload the thing on the side of building up a reserve, and by that means preventing the distribution of any surplus. As I say, we intend to hold the balance evenly between a reasonable and fruitful allocation to reserve and a distribution of whatever surplus there may be at the earliest moment when it may be reasonable to do so.

Amendment negatived.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: I beg to move, in page 21, line 11, to leave out from the word "apply," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert:
the whole thereof to the following purposes or any of them, that is to say—

(a) a pension fund for mine workers over the age of fifty-five;
(b) improving the conditions of work in the mines having particular regard to the safety of the workers;
(c) making provision for transferred or unemployed mine workers."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes,199 Noes, 118.

Division No. 69.]
AYES.
[7.19 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Albery, Sir Irving
Gluckstein, L H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Goldie, N. B.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Assheton, R.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Peake, O.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peat, C. U.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Balniel, Lord
Gretton, Col Rt. Hon. J.
Petherick, M.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bernays, R. H.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Rayner, Major R. H.


Boulton, W. W.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Bracken, B.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannah, I. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Bull, B. B.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Butler, R. A.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Rowlands, G.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Higgs, W. F.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Holmes, J. S.
Salmon, Sir I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Salt, E. W


Channon, H.
Hopkinson, A.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Christie, J. A.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Savery, Sir Servington


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Scott, Lord William


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hunter, T.
Selley, H. R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lees-Jones, J.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Levy, T.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Crossley, A. C.
Lewis, O.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Liddall, W. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Culverwell, C. T.
Lindsay, K. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Davies, Major Sir G. F, (Yeovil)
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


De la Bère, R.
Lloyd, G. W.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S
Titchfield, Marquess of


Denville, Alfred
Loftus, P. C.
Touche, G. C.


Doland, G. F.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Lyons, A. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Drewe, C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Wakefield, W. W.


Duncan, J. A. L.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Dunglass, Lord
McKie, J. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Macquisten, F. A.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Maitland, A.
Warrender, Sir V.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Margesson, Capt, Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wells, S. R.


Errington, E.
Markham, S. F.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Everard. W. L.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Fildes, Sir H.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Findlay, Sir E.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Fleming, E. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Cot. A. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Fremantle, Sir F. E
Munro, P.



Furness, S. N.
Nall, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. Cross and Captain Dugdale.




NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Banfield, J. W.
Buchanan, G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Barnes, A. J.
Burke, W. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Batey, J.
Cape, T.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Bellenger, F. J.
Charleton, H. C.


Ammon, C. G.
Benson G.
Chater, D.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bevan, A.
Cluse, W. S.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.




Cocks, F. S.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ridley, G.


Cove, W. G.
Hopkin, D,
Ritson, J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Daggar, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kirby, B. V.
Sexton, T. M.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Shinwell, E.


Dobbie, W.
Lawson, J. J.
Silkin, L.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Ede, J. C.
Lee, F.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Stephen, C.


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McEntee, V. La T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Foot, D. M.
MacLaren, A.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Gallacher, W.
MacNeill Weir, L.
Thorne, W.


Gardner, B. W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thurtle, E.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Marshall, F.
Tinker, J. J.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Maxton, J.
Walkden, A. G.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Messer, F.
Walker, J.


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Milner, Major J.
Watkins, F. C.


Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gritfiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Oliver, G. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Hardie, Agnes
Paling, W.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Parker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Henderson, A. (Kingiwinford)
Price, M. P.



Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

7.27 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: I rise only to explain why we shall not vote for this Clause. The Clause provides financial provision by putting the whole burden of the acquisition of royalties upon the miners of the country. It is not taking the responsibility which should be taken by the Exchequer and the Government.

We do not believe that it is the right method of proceeding to acquire these royalties that the whole cost should be thrown upon the Commission and, through the Commission, upon the miners themselves. We shall, therefore, oppose the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 113.

Division No. 70.]
AYES.
[7.29 p.m.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Channon, H.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Albery, Sir Irving
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Errington, E.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Christie, J. A.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Assheton, R.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Everard, W. L.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Fildes, Sir H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Findlay, Sir E.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cooks, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Fleming, E. L.


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Dull (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Furness, S. N.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Fyle, D. P. M.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Bernays, R. H.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Goldie, N. B.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Cross, R. H.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Boulton, W. W.
Crossley, A. C.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Crowder, J. F. E.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J


Bracken, B.
De la Bère, R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Denville, Alfred
Grillen, W. G. Howard


Bull, B. B.
Doland, G. F.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Butler, R. A.
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Drewe, C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B


Cartland, J. R. H.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Gunston, Capt. D. W.


Carver, Major W. H.
Dunglass, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Hannah, I. C.


Cayzer, Sir H. R. (Portsmouth, S.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Harbord, A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)




Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Samuel, M. R. A.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Savery, Sir Servington


Hepburn, P. G. T. Eushan-
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)
Scott, Lord William


Higgs, W. F.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Selley, H. R.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Holmes, J. S.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.


Hopkinson, A.
Munro, P.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Nall, Sir J.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Hum, Sir G. H.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hunter, T.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Hutchinson, G. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Peake, O.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Kimball, L.
Peat, C. U.
Sutcliffe, H.


Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Tale, Mavis C.


Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Petherick, M.
Titchfield, Marquess of


Lees-Jones, J.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Touche, G. C.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Levy, T.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lewis, O.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Liddall, W. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Lindsay, K. M.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Little, Sir E. Graham-
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Lloyd, G. W.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Warrender, Sir V.


Loftus, P. C.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wells, S. R.


Lyons, A. M.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rowlands, G.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


McKie, J. H.
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Macquisten, F. A.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Withers, Sir J. J.


Maitland, A.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Salmon, Sir I.



Markham, S. F.
Salt, E. W
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Captain Dugdale and Mr. Grimston




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Hardie, Agnes
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Benson G.
Hayday, A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Sextan, T. M.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Shinwell, E.


Buchanan, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Silkin, L.


Burke, W. A.
Hopkin, D.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Sorensen, R. W.


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Stephen, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. O.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McGhea, H. G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
Maxton, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Foot, D. M.
Milner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)



Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Reduction by the Commission of rents.)

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Mitchell.

Colonel Wedgwood: On a point of Order. Do I understand that you are not calling the Amendment to which my name is attached—in page 21, line 34, after "may," to insert:
(after setting aside such sum as they may think fit for the formation of a fund from which shall be paid from time to time, at their discretion, compensation to owners of houses and other surface buildings or works which have suffered damage by subsidence and in respect of which compensation is not otherwise provided for in this Act).

The Deputy-Chairman: That is so.

Colonel Wedgwood: May I ask why you are not calling that Amendment, in view of the fact that this seems to be the only chance that there will be of making this compensation a charge on the fund? The Amendment seems to me to be of sufficient importance to warrant a Debate on the point. Otherwise, a very considerable injustice will be done to a lot of people in this country without any possibility of putting the matter right, or even of raising it in the House.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment is not now in order.

Captain Arthur Evans: May I ask whether, on this Clause, you propose to allow a discussion on the four Amendments which relate to this point, and, if necessary, to allow a formal Division on the Amendment standing in my name; or whether you propose to call that Amendment, in order that my hon. Friends and myself may have an opportunity of putting our view before the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: As I understand these Amendments, I think it would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if we took a discussion on the three Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) and of the Noble Lord the Member for Lonsdale (Lord Balniel), and on the fourth Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Captain A. Evans), which all relate to the same point, reserving, of course, the right to take separate Divisions if desired.

Sir S. Cripps: May I ask whether you propose to allow a discussion on all the other Amendments to this Clause?

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)—in page 22, line 34, to leave out from "reserve," to "regard," in line 36, and to insert "fair and reasonable rent"—raises, of course, a separate issue, but the discussion would include all the others.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Harold Mitchell: I beg to move, in page 21, line 34, to leave out "any such."
I desire to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Bill as drafted enables the Commission to give relief, in certain circumstances, in particular cases. Clause 21 specifies that relief shall be given in the case of:
"(a) rents payable in respect of underground wayleaves, whether expressly reserved in respect thereof or not;
(b) rents payable by particular lessees working coal in any district or part of a district which are, having regard to all the circumstances, more onerous than the average of the rents payable by lessees working coal under similar conditions in that district or part of a district; and
(c) rents payable by lessees generally working coal in any district or part of a district which are, having regard to all the circumstances, more onerous than the average of the rents payable by lessees generally working coal under similar conditions in other districts or in another part of that district."
The first point about which I am not clear, and about which I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade, is whether it is intended to give this relief in the order of the letters "a," "b" and "c." If that is not to be done why are these letters inserted? It seems to me that, even if they do not direct the Commission, they will at least suggest to the Commission that they should pick out these particular points for relief. Royalty includes many forms of payment. In the first place, there may be fixed or dead rent which is paid whether coal is worked or not; secondly, there may be a royalty payment of so much per ton of coal worked; and, thirdly, there are sometimes payments for wayleaves. There are also payments for shaftage, and so on. All these payments vary from district to district, from colliery to colliery and from estate to estate. It would not be reasonable to assume that all these payments are made in the case of every lease. According to my experience, there is, under the majority of leases, only a straight royalty payment, and perhaps a


fixed or dead rent, with no wayleaves; but, as I say, all these things vary tremendously. What really matters, however, whether to the colliery owner or to the miner—because they are closely associated in regard to the results of the industry—is the total amount paid per ton of coal mined. It is, of course, obvious that conditions vary enormously in different collieries, and what may be a reasonable royalty on a thick seam of coal commanding a high price may be impossible in the case of a thin seam of coal of inferior quality. I suggest that the average colliery proprietor, when negotiating and entering into a lease, takes all these things into account, and, unless he considers the lease to be a reasonable one, I cannot imagine him signing it.
If it is intended to give special relief to particular types of payment for working coal, it seems to me that this would be grossly unfair. I think the only fair way is to reduce the total amount payable by the same percentage. In that way you will avoid unfairness and even the matter up, so that everyone will benefit equally, whether as between different undertakings or as between different districts. This will, incidentally, give a larger measure of relief per ton to those who are making the highest payments. The Bill as drafted seems to me to be open to all sorts of objections, of which I think by far the worst is that you will get different districts, and perhaps different concerns, trying to get special treatment. In other words, you will get that type of lobbying and endeavouring to get preference which does so much harm—

Sir S. Cripps: Really, the hon. Member must not make suggestions of that kind against the coalowners.

Mr. Mitchell: I am speaking from experience. I have some knowledge of the coal trade in one of the great dominions, where the coal is nationalised, and it is that which I had in mind. I would say quite frankly, without trying to make a party point, that there is far less lobbying at present under private ownership in this country than there is in the country I have in mind under nationalisation. I would direct the attention of the Minister particularly to this point. It is not merely individual colliery proprietors who will be affected, but the wages of

the miners will be affected, because it has been brought out many times in the discussions on the Bill that these charges are indeed a burden upon the wages of the miners. I hope that hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee will join in asking the President of the Board of Trade to take this fact into account, and to try to draft some form of words—I do not suggest that the words of our Amendments are the best—which will avoid this objection and will make it possible for a uniform method of reduction to be introduced. I think that it may be a long time before any reduction is forthcoming. I am not optimistic on that side. But when ultimately it may be possible to grant some form of relief to the industry, it should be granted fairly between district and district, and between undertaking and undertaking.

7.46 p.m.

Captain A. Evans: I hope that the Minister will not be persuaded to accept this Amendment, because I put down on the Order Paper an Amendment on the assumption that the original object of this legislation was to reduce royalties in South Wales to a level comparable with the rest of the country, thereby making it less difficult for South Wales to compete in the markets of the world as compared with the country generally. Under this Clause the Government contemplate not only the reduction but the ultimate extinction of royalties. On the Second Reading of the Bill the President of the Board of Trade, having referred to the anomalies of the present royalties system said:
With favourable finance it should be possible to remove these inequalities, to have more and more money available for production, and, in the end, to bring about the final extinction of royalties as a charge on the industry."—[OFFICIAI, REPORT 22nd November, 1937; col. 887, Vol. 329.]
It is anticipated that when the ownership of the royalties has been transferred to the State, in spite of what has been said on Clause 20, it is reasonable to expect that a surplus will accrue to the Coal Commission and it is proposed to apply this surplus to reduction of rents under Subsection (2) of Clause 21. The President of the Board of Trade in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill confirmed the priority of claim in the abatement of the present burden of royalties and wayleaves set out in this Clause. He said that the balance of any sum which remains after the service of the loan, the formation of


the reserve and the administrative charges of the Commission are met
is to be devoted, in the first place, to the abolition of underground wayleaves; in the second place, to removing anomalies between individual undertakings in a particular district; and, in the third place, to removing anomalies between the various districts themselves."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1937; col. 895, Vol. 329.]
South Wales takes exception to this order of priority, and I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister will take the opportunity of explaining the rotation in which these exceptions will be approached by the Government in order that there may be no doubt in anybody's mind. We share the view in South Wales that paragraph (c) should be the first consideration in the minds of the Coal Commission and not paragraph (a). We contend that the collieries and the districts which should have the first claim to the surplus are those on which the incidence of the present inequalities is most grievous. We accordingly suggest that the Sub-section should be amended either in the terms of the Amendment of my hon. Friends behind me or of the Amendment in my name. As the Clause stands. South Wales, possessing a large number of distressed areas, will be most unfairly treated and the purpose of my Amendment is that the worst cases shall be treated first. In support of this proposal I would point out that royalties both in individual cases and on the average are higher in the South Wales coalfield than in any other coalfield in the United Kingdom. They range up to no less than 1s. 4d. a ton, and in some exceptional cases stand at an even higher figure. In 1936 the average South Wales royalty charge, including rental value of freehold minerals worked by the proprietor was 8.63d. per ton on the disposal output compared with an average of 5.65d. per ton on the disposal output of the whole British mining industry. There can be no doubt of the inequality existing between one district and another.
The particular unfairness to South Wales will be all the more vividly appreciated if regard is had for the violence of the difference between the average level of charges in South Wales and Monmouthshire, and that in some of the other coalfields in the country, and the relation of the royalties to prevailing economic conditions. The royalty per ton in South Wales in 1936 of 8.63d.

compares with an average royalty of only 3.31d. in South Derbyshire, Leicestershire, Cannock Chase, and Warwickshire, with 4.58d. in North Derbyshire and Nottingham, and with 4.61d. in Yorkshire. It is also between 2½d. and 3d. per ton higher in South Wales than in Scotland, Northumberland or Durham. South Wales has to carry the burden of this enormously higher rate of royalty although its trading results in 1936, certified by the joint chartered accountants under the Conciliation Board agreement, showed a debit balance of over£70,000, while the relatively low royalty rates in the English coalfields showed the following credit balances: for the Derbyshire group,£1,288,583; North Derbyshire and Nottingham,£2,409,588; and Yorkshire,£2,259,776. The trading loss of£70,436 of South Wales coincided with a credit balance for the whole industry of£9,811,715.
In the third place, approximately half of the output of the South Wales coalfield and of about two-thirds of the most important mining undertakings in that coalfield have to be marketed abroad, and we have to bear in mind that the real employer of the coal miner in South Wales is the foreign consumer, and, therefore, we have to endeavour to get our production costs within a figure which makes it possible for that employer to purchase our products. We are subject to—and it is a restriction not enjoyed by other coalfields—import restrictions and heavily subsidised foreign competition. This is not the moment to dwell on that point, but everybody is well aware of the direct and indirect subsidies which our competitors enjoy, sometimes amounting to 10s. or 12s. a ton. If we look at the coalfields in the Midlands and Yorkshire, which are more concerned with home consumption, we find that they are only interested to an extent of 10 per cent. in the export trade. Under the reorganisation, sales and marketing methods established in the industry, the financial advantages accruing to the coalfields depend wholly or mainly on the inland trade, and, therefore, a protective trade, and they are far greater than the advantages accruing to a district like South Wales, whose whole trade is of a competitive nature, and constitutes the backbone of the industrial life of the Principality.
We are justified in South Wales in bearing in mind, in the fourth place, that


the high royalties were exacted during a period of great output and export expansion. Between 1889 and 1913 the output increased from 28,000,000 to 56,800,000 tons and the foreign exports—not only of cargo but bunker coal—from 13,800,000 to 34,750,000 tons. Since 1913 the figures have fallen from 56,800,000 to 33,900,000 tons and from 34,750,000 to 15,900,000 tons. The main economic basis for the pre-war royalties has been destroyed, yet it is true to say that the average rate of royalty paid in South Wales is actually 7 per cent. higher than in 1913. It should be borne in mind that when the income of the Commission is being obtained by a receipt of royalties, which are at present higher in South Wales than the rest of the country, it follows that South Wales will be asked to contribute to a greater extent than the rest of the country per ton of coal produced to the funds of the Commission. We hear in practically every industrial Debate of the great burden that South Wales has been called on to bear, and, in view of the fact that it was clearly understood in the country that one of the prime reasons for introducing this legislation was to assist in the export trade of this country, I hope the Minister will take an opportunity of reassuring South Wales on this point, and of placing us in a position of fairness and equality with other districts.

8.0 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We have heard a very interesting discussion, in which two hon. Friends of mine have taken opposite sides, which I think makes the proposals in the Bill a fair average to recommend to the Committee. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Captain Evans) said that when the Bill was introduced it was understood that the object was to reduce royalties in South Wales to a level comparable with the rest of the country. No Member of the Government ever said that that was the objective which we had in mind.

Captain A. Evans: May I remind my hon. and gallant Friend of the words which the President of the Board of Trade used on the Second Reading, when he said:
With favourable finance it should be possible to remove those inequalities "—
I understood that that meant the inequalities which existed between the home coal trade and the export coal trade—

to have more and more money available for production and, in the end, to bring about the final extinction of royalties as a charge on the industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd November, 1937; col. 887, Vol. 329.]

Captain Crookshank: That is a very long-term plan. But here are two different proposals. My hon. Friend talked of the possibility of reduction and said that the right way to do it was that when you had a chance of making a distribution of surplus, you should reduce proportionately so that everybody should remain relatively where they are now. I am not sure that that is necessarily a very fair way, because it so happens, or it might so happen, that somebody was from the nature of the case under an undue disadvantage and that it would be more fair to reduce him first rather than to reduce those who were comparatively well off already. My hon. and gallant Friend said that everybody knows from the figures published that the royalties in South Wales ought to get all the benefit, but he omitted to notice that it may be that in some other districts there may be some unfortunate cases where very high royalties are being drawn.

Captain A. Evans: I only submitted for my hon. and gallant Friend's judgment that South Wales deserved to have preference.

Captain Crookshank: One of my hon. Friends says that there must be no reduction unless it is done proportionately all round, and my other hon. Friend takes exactly the other extreme and says that nothing should be done proportionately because they want to get the first amount, as they are suffering. The figures show that the South Wales royalties are far higher on the average than they are in any other district—no one will deny that—but it seems to us that the proposals which we have put into this Sub-section are the best way of dealing with the matter, and that is to leave this to the Commission, who, after all, are statutorily charged with acting in a way that will promote
the interests, e£5ciency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
Therefore, they would have the various considerations in mind. The Mover of the Amendment said we should finish off (a) before dealing with [b] and with (b) before dealing with (c), but that is not, as I understand, the meaning of these words. All that is set out here is three possible ways of using the surplus,


because there is not necessarily priority for abolishing all wayleaves before dealing with the other two points.

Mr. Mitchell: My point was, Is it intended to direct the attention of the Commission first of all to (a)? Is it intended that wayleaves should be weighted more heavily?

Captain Crookshank: That would mean inserting words to the effect that you must not do (b) until you have finished (a), and so on. What we wish to imply is that these are three desirable objects, and that in our general consideration of the problem it is in reductions in these directions that we ought to move.

Mr. Owen Evans: The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the Second Reading Debate, said:
.… the Bill describes the sort of order in which this ought to be done, first in respect of underground wayleaves; second, rents payable by particular undertakings which are more than the average of the rents in the district."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1937; col. 1089, Vol. 329.]

Captain Crookshank: I do not think "the sort of order" is quite the same thing as "the order." The Commission would have to bear in mind that in a certain case there might be a very high wayleave charge and a low royalty payment, or a very low wayleave charge and a high royalty payment, and in the latter case it would not be particularly sensible, because your general idea is to abolish wayleaves, to take away that small amount of the charge and leave the much higher one which my hon. Friend instanced entirely in the cold for a long time. I think the Commission will probably take into account our old friend the global figure of the royalty payment and will probably say, "Here are way-leaves, here are royalties; the sort of charge that this particularly undertaking has got to pay is really above the average of the district," and they would take that into account, but bearing in mind that wayleaves in themselves have been generally considered a burden that ought to be got rid of as soon as possible. Suppose you had a district where the average royalty was 3d, and somebody was paying a 4d. royalty. It would be lather questionable whether you should take into account the fact that a particular person was paying that amount above the average royalty before tackling

the problem of (c), where the average royalty is so much higher than all the others. These Sub-sections are really in the nature of a general guidance, not to be taken specifically in the order [a), (b), and (c), though clearly, from the very fact that wayleaves are in so many cases a very heavy burden, probably the Commission would deal with them first.
The Sub-section deals in part with the case put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff, because where you have got over some of the exceptional cases the Commission has also got to consider the general average as between the districts and to try and bring down the highly averaged district somewhere more reasonably within the scope of the other districts. I think, on the whole, that is the reasonable way to proceed.

Mr. Jenkins: I am in some difficulty as to understanding what the Minister means. Do I understand him to say that if in an area where royalties are comparatively low, say, 3d. per ton, there is another royalty at a single pit of 6d. per ton, that higher payment will receive the attention of the Commission first, whether the higher payment be an isolated case or whether it be in a district such as South Wales?

Captain Crookshank: I think that in some cases they might think that the most desirable thing to do, but I am not the Commission, and I do not know what will be their attitude. All that the Clause seeks to do is to give them a general idea on the subject.

Mr. Jenkins: I am sorry to interrupt, but there is provision in the Bill whereby the Board of Trade will to a large extent advise the Commission as to what steps they should take. Will that direction by the Board of Trade to the Commission go along the lines that I have suggested?

Captain Crookshank: I think we are somewhat at cross-purposes. Paragraph (b) deals with the higher royalties paid in a district where the average is fairly low, and the second portion deals with cases where the whole district is high. Does the hon. Member mean that if in a particular case the royalty paid is above the district, whether the district is a high or low-average district, that that will be dealt with first?

Mr. Jenkins: No, I do not mean that. I mean that you might have conceivably a district where the average payment of royalties and wayleaves is a low payment, but you may get an isolated case where the royalty may be 6d. per ton against the average of 3d., and I take it that the Commission would then deal with that isolated case, and in dealing with it on a high basis they would take into consideration also a district where the general royalty charges are higher, such as in South Wales at the present time, and would apply their surplus in order to bring about a reduction in royalties, whether they are on a high level or not.

Captain Crookshank: That is exactly what is stated.

Mr. Jenkins: I want the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say it.

Captain Crookshank: I do not want to read out the actual words, but surely they are clear in the Bill, and I do not think there is anything between us. I will deal with the other question of the hon. Gentleman, who asked whether the Government cannot give a general direction about this. I should have thought one would be covered, in considering that point, by what is said in Clause 2. I should think that this particular question of using the surplus for reducing abnomally high royalties was something which has clearly to do with the mining industry rather than with the general national interest about which the Clause allows direction.

Mr. Jenkins: Supposing your export trade depended upon it, what then?

Captain Crookshank: I would prefer not to give an answer to that question offhand. To come back to the two Amendments, I put it to the Committee that it would be unreasonable to accept the idea of proportional diminution, leaving everybody relatively as they are. I do not think that that would help. On the other hand, I do not think it reasonable to go as far as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Cardiff said, namely, that everything should go in the first instance to South Wales, though there might be greater hardships elsewhere.

8.15 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I think we are agreed that the obvious thing, if you are going to appoint a Commission, is to give the

Commission latitude as to how it will operate these particular provisions. There is one question which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has failed even to begin to answer. I will read him a few of his expressions. There was quoted to him a sentence of that eminent lawyer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the interpretation of this Section, in which he suggested that (a), (b), and (c) were orders of priority. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has been asked whether they are orders of priority, or merely three expressions of different matters to which the Commission may pay particular attention. In his answer to that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has used these phrases, in order to clarify the matter: "probably," "by and large," "on the whole," "at least in some cases," "as a general idea." That is a catalogue of his definitions in order to bring certainly into the minds of the Committee. I suggest that he might make a better effort than that. Will he tell us quite specifically, are these three categories, in the interpretation of Sub-section (2), categories set out in order of preference, as the Chancellor said, or are they categories to all of which the Commission can and will give equal attention? I think they ought to be the latter. I hesitate to disagree with the Chancellor, but I appreciate that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may have courage enough to disagree with him. It seems to me that if the Chancellor takes a diametrically opposed view to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the hon. and gallant Gentleman had better take steps to clarify the matter on the Report stage.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. Peake: As I happen to find myself in the unusual position of being in agreement with the hon. and learned Member who has just spoken, in the view that if you are establishing a Commission of this kind you should give it as free a hand as possible in this matter of reducing the royalties, I should like to ask my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister for Mines whether in order to clarify Sub-section (2) he would accept my Amendment on the Paper, in line 2, at the end, to insert:
all or any of the following"?

Captain Crookshank: I understand it is already agreed that such words are not necessary, but I will make further inquiries, if it is desired, in order to make-quite certain.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I have not previously studied the Clause with any great care, but the Debate makes it clear that it needs to be studied with greater care than has been given to it. I am not satisfied, despite what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the position as he stated it is correct. I think it is perfectly clear that the words "any such" leave the Commissioners free to choose. I think their freedom of choice goes very far indeed, because there is no reason why, under (a), they should not reduce Mr. Smith's wayleaves and, under (b) and (c), reduce Mr. Brown's and Mr. Jones's rents. That seems to me to present certain elements of danger. It is true that the Parliamentary Secretary said that, under Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, the directions of the Board of Trade can only be in matters affecting the national interest; but I am not clear who can challenge the President's interpretation of those words. Let us assume that some other party which does not now exist is in office, and that a deputation goes from South Wales and says, "We are being unfairly treated in the matter of mining royalties; 25 of the Government supporters sit for South Wales constituencies, and unless you are prepared to give directions to the Commission that they shall give preferential treatment to the owners from South Wales we shall go into opposition."
We have to look at things as they are. The hon. and learned Gentleman has more experience of dubious people than I have, because he spends more of his time prosecuting, defending, or acting for them than I do. These words are not entirely confined to virtuous persons. It is the presence of a few people who are not virtuous that is the cause of most of our legislation. We have to assume that there will be in this world people who take an improper attitude, and it is reasonable to assume that from time to time a part of the country that deems itself improperly treated will organise and, if it thinks it possesses political power, will attempt to squeeze the President of the Board of Trade. We cannot consider Clause 21 without reference to Sub-section (2) of Clause 2, and, with great respect to my hon. and gallant Friend, I do not think the assurances that he gives with reference to Clause 2 are satisfactory. He is not in a position to give assurances. What

matters are the powers which, in fact, will be conferred on the Commission and on the President of the Board of Trade; if they are of such a kind that later on we may have brought into our public life improper pressure of this kind our public life will have suffered. Therefore, I think the Committee ought to give this Clause greater consideration than it has so far done.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Batey: This Clause does not seem to me to give the Commissioners a free hand, even with regard to royalty owners. It does not do that. If the Commission reduce the rents in any district the Clause says that they must report to the Board of Trade, which must lay an Order before the House and that the House must debate it.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I was referring to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). The proviso deals with the general reduction, which is a different matter from that we are discussing, and, therefore, it would appear that I have read the Clause and the hon. Member has not.

Mr. Batey: But the proviso covers (a), (b) and (c).

Mr. Williams: The proviso comes into operation only after the Commission have completed their task under (a), (b) and (c). It does not come before that. The hon. Member has not read it properly.

Mr. Batey: I am going to read it for the benefit of the hon. Member because it appears to me to be necessary to do so. After paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), it says:
Provided that if at any time the Commission report to the Board of Trade that such reduction of rents as they have power to effect under the foregoing provisions.
That means that, if they decide to reduce any rents in a district, they have to make a report to the Board of Trade.

Mr. Williams: No.

Mr. Batey: Oh, yes, it does. The hon. Member said that he was not a lawyer. It is clear that he is not. Then the Board of Trade makes an Order which comes before the House. On the question of reduction of royalties, there may be no royalties or high royalties in the district. There may be one district with no royalties and another district with high royalties. In South Derbyshire, Cannock Chase and Warwickshire, the average


royalty rate is only 3½d., but in South Wales and Monmouth the average is 8d. I do not say that you should bring all the royalties down to one figure; that would be unfair. It would be unfair for the Commissioners to reduce South Wales to 3½d. and would be against the interests of the miners of the district.

Mr. Wragg: Is the hon. Member strictly correct in stating that the royalty rate in South Derbyshire and Leicestershire is 3½d.? As far as I can see it is 3.71d.

Mr. Batey: I said 3½d. I am quoting from the answer of the Secretary for Mines to my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. W. Joseph Stewart) only a few days ago, when he gave the figure of 3.44. I said that the figure was 3½d. for South Derbyshire and that is as nearly correct as a man possibly can be in this world. It would not be fair for the Commissioners to reduce all the royalties to one figure. They will have to take them district by district and make a reduction in each district, or else it will affect the miners and the ascertainments in the district. It would be much better to leave it in the hands of the Commission, and when we get the report from the Board of Trade we can consider whether the reduction will be fair and reasonable or not.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. O. Evans: I would like to explain that the Amendment which stands in my name, to insert a new paragraph (a), was put down partly because of the passage to which I had drawn attention already, namely, that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the Second Reading. In spite of the questions put by the hon. and learned Gentleman to the Minister, there has been no real interpretation or authoritative statement by the Government Department, and I would like to know whether the Attorney-General cannot come and give an opinion as to where we stand. This is extremely important. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, and I am going to read further than I did before because it refers to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths):
At the top of the next page the Bill describes the sort of order in which this ought to be done first in respect of underground wayleaves; second, rents payable by particular undertakings which are more than the

average of the rents in the district. [Interruption.]
The OFFICIAL REPORT says there was an interruption, but why, I am not sure:
It is always in the control of the Commission, and I might say to my fellow Welshman that paragraph (c) says:
rents payable by lessees generally working coal in any district or part of a district which are, having regard to all the circumstances more onerous than the average of the rent payable by lessees elsewhere.'
That answers the question put by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who wanted to know whether it would not be possible under the scheme to relieve the burden, which is a very heavy burden, of royalty charges in the district that he knows so well. When it is remembered—and I would ask the attention of the hon. Gentlemen opposite—that miners' wages are now fixed by reference to 85 per cent. of the balance that is left after meeting charges such as royalties, it is obvious that, if by this scheme you could progressively get rid of these royalties you would by that very process be increasing the balance in that way.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Read on.

Mr. Evans: It continues:
It is with that in mind that we take the view that this scheme is one which should not be dismissed as a small-minded affair, but is, in fact, a very material contribution to a very hard depressed industry."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1937; col. 1089, Vol. 329.]
There is no greater depression anywhere than in the industry in South Wales. The Amendment does not really deal specifically with South Wales; it is not limited to South Wales. It directs itself to the rents of the owners of leases which might be equalised in district by district, area by area or region by region, but equalised on a national basis. I hope that the Minister will reconsider this matter and accept some form of words to deal with the question in a comprehensive way. The case of South Wales specifically has been put very clearly and fully by my hon. Friend sitting below me, but there is this fact which, I think, the Committee do not realise. I will put it in this way. If the money which is required for administrative expenses of the Commission, interest and sinking fund is equivalent to the average royalty throughout the country then, it would follow from that—I have not worked it out—that the whole of the surplus should be built up by the royalty owners in South Wales who pay more than the average. It is upon that ground that we urge that priority should be given to onerous cases either in South Wales or elsewhere.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Are we not to have the benefit of the opinion of the Attorney-General on this subject? I notice that the Junior Whip who represents Sunderland (Mr. Furness) and the National Liberal Party in the Government, has disappeared from the House, presumably as the result of a wink from the Secretary for Mines, and has gone to find the Attorney-General. It is very unsatisfactory that after the somewhat unequal duel in law between the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), we should be left without any guidance from a Law Officer of the Crown on this matter, seeing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so emphatic in his speech on this subject on the Second Reading. I do not put my views against the views of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I only view the law as a Thing to be regarded with great care, because if one embarks upon it one can never get an estimate of what it is going to cost to complete the voyage.
I would draw attention to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) in Sub-section (2), which are not connected by the word "or." They do not appear to be alternatives. At the end of (b) there is the word "and." Therefore, they are more or less connected, and that would appear to lend some credence to the view expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that these paragraphs are to be regarded as the order in which these things are to be done. I notice that the hon. Member for Sunderland has now returned, but he has not brought anyone with him. I do not know whether the result of his search in the smoke room and other places where Ministers hide when they are leaving the Secretary of Mines to his fate, has proved entirely fruitless, but the fact remains that we are without the assistance of the Attorney-General, and there is not even a Parliamentary Private Secretary available to run between the Minister and the Box. It is not treating the Committee with proper respect that on a Clause like this, where issues have been raised mainly by hon. Members on the Government side, we shall find the Government represented by a minister who is not in the Cabinet, and two Whips.[HON. MEMBERS: "The Financial Secretary to the Treasury."] I apologise. I thought the right hon. and gallant Member was a Whip.

Is the Committee to have any guidance on this point of law? Another Whip has now returned and he, apparently, has been unsuccessful in his search for someone to help us. No answer has been given to the series of questions which have been raised. It is clear from what the Secretary for Mines said that he has been advised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer misled the House on the Second Reading, but one can hardly imagine that on a matter of law of this kind the views of the Chancellor of the Exchequer can be so lightly brushed aside. I hope that before the Debate ends we shall have some further enlightenment from the Treasury Bench on the point before the Committee.

8.39 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I thought we had cleared up the matter. I understood that we had agreed that these three paragraphs were, so to speak, parallel and not subjects of priority. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that that was his view, and the point outstanding was whether we should put in any particular words.

Sir S. Cripps: The point was whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right.

Captain Crookshank: We are discussing the words of this Clause rather than what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said on Second Reading. I thought that it was agreed that (a), (b) and (c) were not to be considered as matters of priority but rather as three objectives which should be looked at by the Commission. I said that that was my reading of the Clause and the hon. and learned Member said that that was his view. Therefore, I left it at that, saying that if it was necessary to make the matter still more clear—my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said he thought it was necessary—I would look into the point, but that as at present advised I thought it was not necessary. I do not think there is any great mystery about it.

8.40 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: The position is highly unsatisfactory. Surely, we are entitled to have the services of the Law Officers to advise us on matters of law on a Bill of this kind, which is full of legal points. It is the duty of one of the Law Officers to be present. Therefore I desire to move that we report Progress as a protest at the absence of the Law Officers.

Captain Crookshank: I am sure that the hon. and learned Member does not want to delay the proceedings by taking a Division.

Sir S. Cripps: The Attorney-General is now present. In view of his very tardy appearance, I withdraw my Motion, and I imagine that he will now explain the point to the Committee.

8.41 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Donald Somervell): I apologise to the Committee for my absence. I understand that the point which has been raised in Debate, which I have not had the advantage of hearing, is whether paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) impose as a matter of instruction to the Commission a priority of choice as to the subjects which they can consider when they have a surplus which enables them to make a reduction. The answer is, I think, clear, that as a matter of law they impose no priority. Obviously, it may be the desire of Parliament to tell people that they are to have one, two or more considerations in mind before arriving at a certain course of conduct, and unless Parliament says expressly that they are to consider one in preference to another they are entitled to consider them all accordingly and in their discretion to decide to which they shall give effect. On the other hand it is perhaps right to say that the Commission, which will be people like ourselves, doing their best to carry out their duties, might say: "Parliament has put one subject first, another second and another third." They might go on to say:" That does not in any way bind us. It may give us some indication of what Parliament thought was a matter which would most likely require attention in the first instance, but it does not as a matter of law bind us."
It might, however, be taken by reasonable people, which we presume the Commission will be, as a sort of indication of what Parliament thought was the likely order in which these things would come up for consideration. If in the circumstances as they were presented to the Commission they thought that the case under (c) had a priority to the case under (a) or (b), they would not have the slightest difficulty under these words. These initial letters would impose no obstacle in regard to their giving priority to the considerations under (c) if they thought the circumstances brought before

them justified them in giving prior consideration to (c) rather than the subjects under the earlier paragraphs. I hope I have appreciated the point before the Committee. That is the best assistance I can give them.

Sir S. Cripps: We are much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is now the case that if Parliament does not think this is the right order. Parliament can change it, because a reasonable man would assume that being put in this order it was the order in which Parliament intended them to be considered. If this is the wrong order, then the hon. Member will try his best to get it changed.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Evans: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General for his explanation, but I am entirely at a loss to understand why it is necessary to have paragraphs (b) and (c). We have been anxious to stress the point that the reduction of rents shall be considered by the Commission on a national basis, as distinct from a district basis. That raises a question of principle. You do not go in for the unification of royalties except to make unification a national policy. In the long years during which the agitation has proceeded in favour of the unification of royalties one point upon which stress has been consistently laid has been the fact that royalties were unfair not only in regard to particular districts but in regard to particular pits in particular districts, and that the unification of royalties would enable a national survey and a national settlement to be made of the burden of royalties on particular districts.
It is not surprising that the circumstances of South Wales should have been stressed not only because the royalties are heavy, but also because they are relatively heavy on the particular trade in South Wales. I am not going to put up South Wales in competition with other districts. That is the last thing I want to do, but if you are going to unify royalties surely the unifying body should have the power, in considering a reduction of rents, to bear in mind the burden of royalties in regard not only to particular pits in individual districts, but also in regard to particular districts in relation to the whole country. My reading of paragraph (b) is that the Commission is given power to reduce rents where royalties hit a


particular pit hard in any particular district, and then paragraph (c) says that the Commission shall also pay attention to the fact that the royalties in some particular pit in a district is against the general average of the burden of royalties throughout the country. If that is so I cannot understand why paragraphs (b) and (c) cannot be put into one Clause. You would then get rid of the suggestion that there is a suggestion of priority in this matter. Paragraph (a) deals with wages, but I think paragraphs (b) and (c) should be reconsidered by the Government with a view of incorporating them in one Clause, so that there will be no doubt that the reduction of royalties shall be on a national basis and not on a district basis.

8.50 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to draw attention to the fact that this Bill is a fraud on the miners and workers of the country. This discussion is a proof of it. On a previous Clause we discussed whether some consideration should be given to the miners and the big-hearted philanthropists who are running the mines of this country got up and proved that there would be no surplus worth talking about; it: was but a snare and a delusion to talk about a surplus being used to assist the miners. Now it is a question of reducing the rents, and I guarantee that there is not one member opposite who will argue on this question on the same lines as he argued on the previous one. Throughout the whole piece it is a question of the royalty owners and the mineowners grabbing all they can. I protest against it, and I say that the whole Clause should be wiped out and that no consideration should be given to them until the miners have not what they deserve.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I want to protest against the pious assumption throughout the discussion that royalties are to be wiped out. I have heard many speeches protesting against the exactions of high royalties, and the hon and gallant Member for Cardiff, South (Captain A. Evans) has referred to the extortions of the royalty owners in South Wales. Where was he during all the years that Lord Tredegar was doing this business in South Wales? Now we are hearing of the deprivation of South Wales from hon. Members who hitherto have been the supporters of the royalty owners in South

Wales. But there is another feature. The Bill vests these coal hereditaments in the Commission. At that point we are going to have all sorts of appeals for a reduction of royalties. It has been more than staggering to hear the language used in this connection. The President of the Board of Trade talked of the extinction, of royalties, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I should have thought would have known better, talked of getting rid of royalties. There is£66,000,000 to be paid in order to vest in the Commission the ownership of coal and mines in this country and therefore it is the duty of the Commission to take the royalties they can exact from that coal.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said that the Commission would be expected to exact the royalty which any decent landowner would expect—if there is such a thing on this earth. One would think there was going to be a surplus which would be used to wipe out royalties entirely. It should be the bounden duty of any community resuming ownership over its raw materials and land to see that the persons who use that land or coal shall pay the community, in this case through the Commission, the full economic royalty or rent. To talk about abolishing royalties makes it appear as though this Committee were dealing with a subject which it does not clearly understand. Royalties are in some way, roughly if you like, connected with an assessment of the advantages attaching to land, and coal is land, although it is black. The royalties are higher in cases where the coal is easy to get or where its value is greater owing to its being a certain type of coal. I protest against all this loose talk, because there is no idea seriously entertained in the Committee about the utter extinction of royalties.
There are more persons to be considered here than the landowners or the receivers of royalties and the colliery owners. We have to consider the community. The community will at least be responsible for the raising of the loans, and therefore the community has the duty to see that whatever is exacted from the lessees who use the nation's coal shall be a full and economic exaction, and that the Commission shall make no attempt, under the guise of unification, to wipe out the obligation of the lessees to pay royalties.
There has been a good deal of discussion as to the meaning of Sub-section 2, paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), of this Clause, which are like three wild horses in a troika. I think that discussion has been a waste of time. The meaning of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Sub-section (2) is clear. What emerges from the discussion so far is that the surplus is to be used to extinguish high royalties. May I point out that what I am about to say is not a criticism of the Minister, for I have oftentimes admired the way he has handled this most difficult Bill. From the very beginning, I have felt that this Bill is one of the greatest hoaxes ever played upon the State, and certainly it is one of the most cruel jokes ever played upon the miners. When there is a surplus, if ever there is one, for what purpose is it to be used? It is to be left in the hands of the Commission, and they are to be given permission to grant remissions with regard to royalties to the landowners. What is the miner to get out of it? Nothing. That is the ghastly fact which emerges from Clauses 20 and 21. They are the most important Clauses in the Bill, for they throw some light on the financial arrangements. The miners had hoped to gain very much from this so-called unification. It has been very comical to hear the oscillations around the word "unification." I notice that the Chancellor of the Exchequer dropped the word "nationalisation." I think the real word should be "commissionisation," for that is what is to happen. The Commission is to take control of this coal.
From Clause 21 we get a fair picture of the position. There will be a strong and determined move on the part of colliery owners to make a first call upon any surplus in the hands of the Commission, and the miners are to be the residual claimants of anything left, that is to say, nothing. A more cruel joke has never been played upon any part of the community' than this Bill plays upon the miners. For years and years the aspiration of the miners has been to have something done that would give them a better claim on the products of the industry, and now to-night, under Clause 21 of this Bill, the miners will not be the first, but the last to be considered. Therefore, I protest against this loose talk of any idea being entertained in responsible

quarters that royalties shall be abolished. They cannot be abolished. One can no more abolish royalties than land. Let us finish with this talk about the surplus being used to wipe out royalties altogether. It cannot be done.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I would like to put a point to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General. In the Second Reading Debate, I raised the question which is raised in this Amendment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in replying to some remarks which I had made, said:
At the top of the next page, the Bill describes the sort of order in which this ought to be done."—[OFFICIAL RFPORT, 23rd November, 1937; col. 1089, Vol. 329.]
Hon. Members will note that the Chancellor did not say, "may be done," but "ought to be done." That is an instruction to the Commission that the order in which paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are in the Bill must be the order of priority. That was an interpretation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a specific point which I raised. The Attorney-General, in his remarks just now, did not make any reference to that, but I gather that his interpretation is that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are not in any kind of order of priority in this Clause, and that the Commission could do what it liked, as long as it was within the ambit of the Clause.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Wragg: I do not know much about the law, except to the extent that I have been involved in various lawsuits with either success or failure, but it seems to me that this Clause, unless it is made more clear, will be of considerable benefit to the lawyers. I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)—in page 22, line 2, at the end, insert, "all or any of the following." The insertion of those words would make it clear that the Commission could allot any surplus it was fortunate enough to have in any of these directions.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren), hon. Membrs on this side probably agree that it would be wrong to subsidise any group of traders at the expense of the community, except in very exceptional circumstances. He would be a very foolish


man who would advocate that no royalty should be paid, but I think the hon. Member for Burslem was entirely wrong when he said that the miners would get no advantage. After all, 85 per cent. of any advantage accruing from a remission of royalties would go to the miners and 15 per cent. to the owners. That is clear from the figures and from the way in which arrangements are made in the mining industry. Although the miners may not get very much, they will certainly get their share of any remissions there may be in royalties in any district and in any direction.

Amendment negatived.

9.5 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 22, line 2, at the end, to insert "all or any of the following."
I think everything that can be said in favour of this Amendment has already been said. As it is so close to Christmas, and as none of my Amendments has yet found favour with my right hon. Friend, he might possibly agree to the insertion of these words.

Sir S. Cripps: We shall certainly support the hon. Member on this Amendment, if he goes into the Division Lobby.

Captain Crookshank: I think I have already made it clear that we consider fliese words unnecessary, but we are prepared to look further into the matter in order to make quite sure that we are right in that view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O. Evans: I beg to move, in page 22, line 2, at the end, to insert:
(a) First, rents payable by particular lessees working coal which are, having regard to all the circumstances, more onerous than the average of the rents payable by lessees generally working coal in all of the districts and so as to secure as soon as reasonably practicable that in no case shall the rent payable by any particular lessees in any district be more onerous, having regard to all the circumstances, than the average of the rents payable by all lessees in all of the districts.

Amendment negatived.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 22, line 34, to leave out from "reserve," to "regard," in line 36, and to insert "a fair and reasonable rent."
Sub-section (3) of this Clause provides that the Commission shall not reduce any rent during the currency of the lease by which it is reserved, and it goes on to say that in the granting of new leases or in renewing leases which have expired the Commission shall reserve
the best rent which in their opinion can reasonably be obtained. '
These words, I believe, are taken from the Settled Land Acts which impose a duty of this kind upon trustees of property, but I submit that in the case which we are discussing the words are absurd, because the Commission will have a complete monopoly of all the coal in the country, and the best rent which can be obtained may be, and, in fact, nearly always will be, an exorbitant figure, especially where a lease falls to be renewed.

Mr. Stanley: The words are
the best rent which can reasonably be obtained.

Mr. Peake: But who is to say that a royalty of 9d. or 1s. per ton is not a rent which could reasonably be obtained?

Mr. Shinwell: What is "fair and reasonable"?

Mr. Peake: If you put the duty on the Commission of obtaining the best rent they will have to see who is the highest bidder, and in the case of a virgin area it practically amounts to putting it out to tender. That might result in an offer of 1s. or 1s. 6d. a ton when the general level of royalties all over the country has been reduced from 5½d. to 4d. a ton. Suppose in a case of that sort a rent of 1s. has been offered to and accepted by the Commission. Under Sub-section (2), they are in duty bound to reduce that rent to the general level of the district. In my view, it would be far more sensible to give the Commission the duty of reserving a fair rent rather than
the best rent which in their opinion can reasonably be obtained.

Mr. Silverman: In what way does "the best rent which can reasonably be obtained "differ from "a fair and reasonable rent"?

Mr. Peake: I though I had made that clear. The best rent which can reasonably be obtained in the case of a virgin area obviously means putting it out to tender and accepting the offer of the highest bidder.

Mr. Silverman: Under the Clause it must be a reasonable offer.

Mr. Peake: It may well be reasonable, and if a colliery owner is prepared to offer it, I am sure it would be reasonable. But I suggest that as there is a duty on the Commission to reduce all the royalties to the same level it would be absurd to ask for and to obtain is. a ton and immediately afterwards to bring it down to a lower level.

9.12 p.m.

Sir H. Seely: I cannot see why the word "best" is required now that we are passing on from the stage of having a number of royalty owners. Hitherto in trustees' agreements and other documents of that kind there has been an. onus to make the best bargain possible but now that we are to have one body dealing with royalties I cannot see the advantage of the word "best" in this connection. It suggests the underlying idea of competition, and I think the words "fair and reasonable" would be more in accord with what one hopes would be the state of things under the Bill.

9.13 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I suggest that the wording proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend would result in placing more of a burden on the colliery owner than our wording does.[HON. MEMBERS: "On the Commission? "] No, on the colliery owner in the matter of the payment of rent. My hon. and gallant Friend spoke as if the word "best" necessarily meant the very highest in any circumstances, but I would draw his attention to the wording of the Clause. It says
the best rent which can reasonably be obtained in the opinion of the Commission, and generally in the circumstances of the case.
Having regard to their general powers under the Bill, I think those words are better than the words which my hon. and gallant Friend proposes, and would not place so big a burden on the coalowner, taking into account the qualifications of the word "best" to which I have referred. Perhaps if my hon. and gallant Friend thinks the matter over, he will see that we are right in our view.

Amendment negatived.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 23, line 3, at the end, to insert:

Provided that the Commission may temporarily or otherwise reduce the rent reserved by a lease or grant relief in respect of other conditions of the lease in any case in which by reason of physical or economic conditions such reduction of rent or other relief appears to the Commission to be reasonable.
The object of the Amendment is to give the Commission the power, which every good landlord possesses and sometimes uses, of foregoing his rent for a temporary period in the hope that the fortunes of his tenant will improve. Mineral owners frequently forego their rent on account of difficult physical or economic conditions experienced by the royalty payer. We read every year in the Schedule of the Public Works Loan Bill a sorry tale of farmers who have not paid their rents and who have been driven into bankruptcy because the Public Works Loan Board cannot forego their claim for rent. It seems to me desirable that the Commission should have the same power that a good landlord has of temporarily foregoing the rent in the hope that the fortunes of the colliery will recover and that he will get his rent in future, which he might not do if he forced the colliery owner into bankruptcy.

9.18 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I suppose this is the Christmas present which my hon. Friend is expecting. There are two reasons of difficulty in this Amendment—first, the physical, and second, the economic. My hon. Friend did not enlarge upon the physical, but it struck me when I first saw the Amendment that there might be something in that case. You might, during the currency of a lease, come across such an underground disturbance or some other physical cause that it would be obviously unreasonable not to make some alteration in the lease. I do not think, however, that it would be reasonable to make a proviso about the economic conditions. The Committee ought to take a broad view about the functions of this Commission. It will be the universal ground landlord of the coal, and we ought to expect that it will act reasonably in the discharge of its duties in administering its estates as well as, if not better than, the existing landlord. Where circumstances arise which might cause a bankruptcy or prevent the coal being worked, the ordinary good landlord to-day takes them into account, and I do not see why we should not expect the Commission to do the same. It is not debarred


from doing that, and one hopes that it will do it and act as the best possible landlord. I do not think, however, that it would be advisable to put in the word "economic," which is a word nobody can define in all its aspects. I would ask my hon. Friend not to trouble too much about that, if he will accept the general view that a statutory body of this kind will act as a good landlord. With regard to the physical difficulties, I am prepared to look into the matter further.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: This Clause provides for a reduction of rents to be considered by the Commission, and, in the conditions laid down in the Clause, the Commission will have the right to take into consideration applications made to them. It has been pointed out that probably the colliery owners will be the first to make any claim on any surplus which may accrue. Therefore, as one who represents a district that suffers as a result of coal mining, I desire to take every opportunity to contrast the treatment meted out to certain well organised people with that meted out to people who are affected by mining subsidence. Yesterday I was in my division, and I travelled through several other divisions which are suffering from subsidence. A number of the houses that I saw looked as if they had been struck by lightning, and they were being repaired by contractors. The cost of this damage falls as an additional charge upon property owners and owner-occupiers, with the latter of whom I am particularly concerned. Since I spoke last on this matter a number of friendly societies, property owners' associations, municipalities and other organisations have been much concerned about the Government's attitude to this question. Therefore, one or two hon. Friends and I have made up our minds that on every Clause which enables us to raise this issue we shall speak about it.
I have been reading during the weekend the Sankey Commission Report, and I find in volume 2, page 8, the following words:
Plots of land are let for building and the law allows this to be done without the right to underground support, so that the coal is

worked from underneath. Houses are damaged and no compensation is paid. This is not consistent with the public well-being.
I want to contrast the provision under this Clause for a reduction in rents with the treatment that our people are receiving. We are supported in our attitude by the Royal Commission which considered the question and by the Samuel Commission. I have a letter from the Burslem Mutual Insurance Collecting Society, which is composed of thousands of people living in North Staffordshire. They quote the case of a miner who left his house to his wife. The house became affected by subsidence and she had to spend£50 to repair the damage. The colliery company offered her£25 for the house, but this was later increased to£75, and because the woman could not afford to pay for the repairs she sold the house to the company, which had the house taken down. I want to protest against the Government's attitude to well-organised vested interests as compared with their treatment of the owner-occupiers, for whom I am speaking.

9.25 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: May I say that the Subsection to which the last speaker referred was, to some extent, perhaps not entirely, covered by an Amendment which was not called, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and other Members? I do not want to deal with that at any length; the Committee has on two occasions already debated the question of subsidence; nor do I want at any length to refer to various Debates which have taken place this afternoon on alternative and suggested better ways of dealing with any surplus that may accrue. I should like to make this point, that there is not anywhere in the Bill any fund or any kind of means out of which damage for subsidence can be paid for. The suggestion which we should have liked the Government to adopt and have put in the Clause was that, at any rate, before handing over to the coalowners any surplus which might come to their hands, they might at least have provided for this very reasonable claim which is not otherwise provided for.
I pass from that to say that it would perhaps be a pity if the Clause were finally parted with without underlining—one can do no more—the points made by the hon. Member for Burslem


with regard to it. It is, after all, in many ways the central Clause of the Bill. There is to be a surplus. I know it was argued earlier that it might be many and long years before any surplus came to hand, but I think that that point was effectively met by my hon. Friend above the Gangway, who pointed out that in that case it was difficult to understand what the Bill was about if no one was ever to get advantage out of it, for long years for which no man can foresee. It was suggested from the other side only a few minutes ago that if you hand over this surplus to the coalowners there is a method of ascertaining wages of miners, and that under the agreement which now obtains the miners will get 86 per cent. of it eventually. Eighty-five per cent. of what? I think that the hon. Member who made that point could not have heard the previous Debate this afternoon, or he would not have had the courage to say now, after the destructive analysis to which that point has been put, that the miners can hope for any solid, material, or even appreciable part if the surplus is handed over after long years in order that it may filter down to them in some way and come out in the end to the 85 per cent. It was really only a roundabout way of saying, what has been said more crisply and succinctly, that the miners are to get nothing out of this at all.
The Committee has devoted almost the whole of the day to discussing and ultimately rejecting a wealth of alternative methods of dealing with any surplus. It would be an impertinence to attempt to repeat those alternatives or even to underline them, but I would just remind the Committee of them now that we are being asked to part with this Clause, and add it to the Bill. After all, these alternative methods, these better methods, these methods which would be of so much greater advantage to the miners, have been turned down, and all we are left with, if we now accept this Clause and add it to the Bill, when all is said and done and everything that can be done is done, is that any advantage which ultimately results and is left in the hands of the Commission will be handed back to the coalowners. That is the only point. If the Government refuse to use the surplus for the purpose which has

been so overwhelmingly pressed on them this afternoon, why on earth should they be willing to use it to relieve the natural exploiters of the coal of the economic rent which they ought to pay? There can be only one reasonable deduction from the refusal on the one hand to accept any of the suggestions made, and the insistence on the other hand to hand it back in this way to the coalowners. That deduction is that the Measure was designed from the start in order that the Government could deceive the mining community into supposing that they might conceivably at some date derive some advantage from the Bill, whereas the Government intended from the start that they should derive no advantage at all.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I should like to say a word or two on the remark made by the Secretary for Mines in reply to the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). He said he was prepared to consider, when discussing the hon. Member's Amendment, that the word "physical" should be entertained, but that the word "economic" should not be entertained. I gather from that that any geological difficulties with which the coalowners may be confronted from time to time may receive consideration by the Commission, but that any difficulties with which the people residing in close proximity to a geological disturbance which is covered by subsidence are faced, will have no consideration at all. This Clause certainly brings out what was in the mind, I think of the hon. Member for North Leeds, when he said that if there was a surplus, there might not be a surplus for 30 years. The hon. Member must have had in mind his own Amendments, in which he was deliberately engineering to prevent any surplus accumulating at all. The hon. Member must have had in mind the three points contained in this very Clause, in which he could see that priority was to be given to coalowners while no consideration should be given to miners. That is, of course, as the Minister said when he rose to reply to the last Amendment, the hon. Member's Christmas present. He has got it. He has got consideration for a reduction of costs in the rent when any physical difficulty can be shown to the Commission.
Hon. Members on this side have been pleading for the last three or four days


for some consideration to local authorities, for some consideration to persons who are cottage owners, particularly in the depressed areas, where they are faced with an enormous expenditure annually on repairs. The Government, however, have turned a deaf ear to anything said from this side of the Committee. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) is quite correct; the Bill is designed to relieve the colliery proprietors, but no relief whatever will come to the miners. The suggestion that they may have pensions through State aid, and that there should be greater expenditure on research, and things of that kind—all those things are completely wiped out. This Clause shows the intentions of the Government. Millions are to be taken out of the industry, and all of ii will be taken from the miners, yet the Government are not prepared to permit one single penny-piece of the reserve to be used in the interests of the miners, though they are prepared to allow colliery proprietors to obtain relief where any physical difficulties arise. I do not think we on this side of the Committee ought to allow the Clause to pass without protesting against such conduct on the part of the Government, who are prepared to listen to the pleadings of the colliery proprietors but are not prepared to give any consideration to the miners.

9.36 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: Will the Secretary for Mines be good enough to tell us what he means by physical as contrasted with economic difficulties, because when the physical conditions in a mine make it difficult for the mine to be worked there must be an effect upon the economic position? I do not see how we can separate the two. If a seam of coal is physically affected by a fault, or by its proving thin, or by any displacement produced by Nature, there are bound to be economic consequences in the working of the mine. I am rather sorry that we on this side are not to have an opportunity of voting against the Clause and I hope that our leaders will reconsider that decision. On Clauses 20 and 21 we have been asking that some redress should be given to the miner. In Clause 21 we find that:
rents payable in respect of underground wayleaves.
and
rents payable by particular lessees working coal 

may be reduced. That shows that money is being provided somehow for a certain class of people, and as we have not by our arguments been able to prevail upon the Treasury bench to give some of the surplus to the people whom we represent we ought to take every opportunity of resisting a Clause like this, to show how determined we are, before this Bill gets on to the Statute Book, to impress upon the Government benches that we must have something for our people. The only way is to be as difficult as possible on all these Clauses, to show the resentment we feel at the way we have been met by the Government. I trust that our leaders will listen to what we have to say, and will give us an opportunity of going into the Division Lobby against this Clause.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: I should like to draw attention to paragraph (b) which refers to the reduction of
rents payable by particular lessees working coal in any district or part of a district which are, having regard to all the circumstances, more onerous than the average of the rents payable by lessees working coal under similar conditions in that district or part of a district;
Put into everyday language, that means that those people are to get redress without any means test. No account is to be taken of the profits which they have made in the past or whether they are going to make any profits in the future. It will only be a matter of showing that just for that moment they are at a disadvantage by comparison with other colliery owners who are paying a higher royalty. They may not be paying a higher royalty, they may be paying only 4¼d. or 4½d., which is the average for Yorkshire. The average of royalties all over is 4.65d., some collieries paying more and some less. I am thinking of certain collieries in the county from which I come which are not paying the same amount in royalties as the others. Nobody knows that better than the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who has all this business at his fingers' tips. This paragraph suggests a colliery company coming cap in hand to get the royalty reduced, but does not say they will be asked, "Look here, what banking account have you got?" [Interruption.] There is no means test whatever.

The Chairman: I hope that for his own sake the hon. Member will not refer too


often to the means test, because it is apt to make the occupant of the Chair listen rather attentively to him.

Mr. Griffiths: I should not have mentioned it but for the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) interjecting some observations, as he does when I am speaking. As I was sang, the colliery company will not be asked to show what their profits have been in the past. The very fact of them being able to say, "We are paying 5d. in royalty as against 4½d. being paid by the other colliery company over the way," will enable them to get redress. At the beginning of the Debate we put up a fight to try to "get a little bit out of the dog's throat," as the saying is. We tried to get something towards pensions, something towards safety research, but the President of the Board of Trade only said, "I am full of sympathy for you, but it cannot be done." It cannot be done for us, but it can be done for these other fellows. It cannot be done for those who work the coal, but it can be done for the shareholders who hold out their hands for dividends, and we protest against this bias on the part of the Government.

9.42 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I rise with some satisfaction to support those who believe that this Clause ought not to stand part of the Bill. We say that on broad grounds the Clauses which we have been considering to-day are a violation of the statements made when the Bill was introduced, and of the pledges which Ministers have given in the country again and again, that the nationalising of mining royalties would mean some substantial benefits to the mine workers. They are late in discovering that the miners need some advantages. We have been endeavouring to secure some reasonable return for those whose property will be injured by subsidence, but that application was turned down on the ground that there would not be funds available for that purpose. We have asked that the veterans of industry, after a long and toilsome existence in the mines, should have some consideration in the way of pensions, and that safety research should be undertaken at the expense of the industry, but both those proposals have been turned down.
If the Government had justified those refusals there might have been some

reason for supporting this Clause as part of the Bill, but we have had no arguments from the Secretary for Mines or from the legal advisers of the Government to show that there is any justification for the course pursued by the Government. It all shows that it is the owning class who are to receive the benefits and that the workers are to be carefully excluded. If I may digress slightly, I should like to say that on Saturday last I attended a Christmas treat to some 250 veterans from the mines. It was a pathetic spectacle. I inquired where they had come from. Many of them had come from the workhouse, I suppose. The great majority were the guests of public assistance committees. They were thoroughly respectable in every way. Many of them had been abstainers and non-smokers for a long time. Some of them, I was advised, had worked in County Durham for 40 or even 50 years. They were glad at this Christmas season to have the treat, which meant a good square meal for once. These are they to whom this industry has never been able to do justice, although it has produced so great a quantity of wealth for the owners of the companies or of the royalties. Until quite recently, when county councils and local housing authorities began to do their duty by the workers, they were living in worse conditions than those in which many farmers house their animals. The chairman was the brother of the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Cape) and I asked him how many of the people had something put away after their arduous labours. He said there was scarcely one in the whole crowd. A few had left the mines before they were physically finished and had commenced some other occupation, and had thus put by a small competence.
That is a fine, brilliant record. As a nation, we ought to be ashamed of our treatment of the mineworkers, who not only have to face laborious work from day to day and at all hours of the night, but have to face death and maiming. We were advised that many of their colleagues, friends and relatives had suffered thus in the course of their work in the mines. It is manifest that miners' pensions ought to be provided as a first charge against the industry. When are we—

The Chairman: I would remind the hon. Member that he cannot on this Clause repeat a debate on an Amendment proposed on the preceding Clause, and that we must keep the Debate on the subject-matter of the Clause.

Mr. Adams: I ask, shortly, that the Committee will show some sense of decency by turning down the Clause as a protest against the treatment meted out in the Bill to the mineworkers of the country.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Addressing the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) the Secretary for Mines made what appeared to be a very important statement. He said that the Commission would be empowered to deal with an application from a colliery company for some relief from royalties, or to be relieved altogether, if they had met with adverse physical conditions in the pit. He indicated that he was quite prepared to look with favour upon that suggestion. Another part of the Amendment, which the hon. Member withdrew, proposed to give power to the Commission to deal with an application from a colliery company for relief from or reduction of royalties because of adverse economic conditions. He said that that could not be met. I hope that we shall have an explanation in rather more detail of what that distinction meant. When a colliery meets with adverse physical conditions, the output goes down, and that automatically reduces the royalty.

Sir H. Seely: But not the minimum rent.

Mr. Griffiths: That is separately provided for. Take another case. Suppose there is a colliery company which has met with a difficult period of adverse economic conditions. I can cite a sad case of a colliery in my division which has been closed for 10 weeks because the directors have had to meet a difficult period in which they have had to fluctuate their prices in accordance with the fluctuation of the franc. Suppose that that colliery company, pointing to their very difficult time and to the need to adjust their contracts and prices to the changes in the value of the franc, had asked to be relieved from payment of royalties or for a reduction; the Commission would be empowered to give relief so as to enable the company to keep men in employment,

if the company had met with adverse physical conditions, but not with adverse economic conditions. I hope that the Secretary for Mines will tell us why it is possible for the Commission to meet the result of adverse physical conditions but to exclude from their consideration and their purview adverse economic conditions.

9.52 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I want to make clear the attitude we take in regard to this Clause. We are entirely against this method of distribution of the surplus of the Commission. We have put forward various suggestions, but unfortunately the Committee has voted against them. There is presumably to be a surplus, which is to be disposed of in some way. I understand that the policy of the Mineworkers' Federation is that the best way to dispose of it is to reduce the amount of the rent, in order that by some chance there might trickle through to the miner some benefit of that reduction. If a surplus accrues and is utilised by the Commission for the purpose of buying securities, which can be raised in the open market, thereby wiping out more rapidly its capital, that is to say, imposing upon the miners each year a degree of the surplus, necessitated by paying off the capital value of the royalty, it seems a wrong procedure. It is far better, however small the royalty, that something should be given to the miner. Once you put a Commission in charge of royalties, that Commission should have as great a degree of latitude as possible in dealing with leases which are granted. We believe that the Clause should give that degree of latitude which is desirable. We do not see any other sensible course to take than to let this Clause go by, with the protest that we have been unable to get this concession from the Government.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. MacLaren: I hope there will be a stern opposition to this Clause. The Bill was wrongly conceived from the outset, but that is not our fault. These royalties should return to the Treasury, and should not reside in the hands of any independent commission. We on this side of the House have shouted often enough that God made the land for the people and that the land belongs to the people. Therefore, to be logical, the value of the coal that is in the land should go back to the Treasury


when once the people assume control of it. Here we have a Bill which hands the coal over, not to the people, but to a Commission. That being so, we ask what will happen should there inure to the Commission a surplus. Shall it be used to redeem their loans more swiftly? I do not mind if it is used in that way, but I want emphatically to warn the miners in the House of Commons and outside that they must not be gulled by the pretext that something is going to trickle through to them. It would be treacherous in the extreme for any Member on this side to accept that bait, and to allow it to go out that we passively allowed this most vicious Clause to pass through unchallenged because some trifle might trickle through to the miners. I am amazed that there has not been a more valiant opposition to the Clause, and I am a little startled when I hear it suggested that there should be nothing more than a sort of protest by a show of hands against the Clause. I, for one, will oppose it. There is behind it more than meets the eye, and any Member who feels as strongly as I am sure many on this side feel will see, as time goes on, that a vote against the Clause will be warranted by the facts. Therefore, I hope that there will be a solid opposition to the Clause.

Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Lieut.-Colonel C. KERR and Major Sir A. J. EDMONDSON were nominated Tellers for the Ayes; hut, there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, The CHAIRMAN declared that the Ayes had it.

The Chairman: As there are no Amendments down to the next six Clauses, if hon. Members do not want to raise any question on them I might, perhaps, put them en bloc.

Sir S. Cripps: There are two points that I should like to raise on Clauses 25 and 27.

Clauses 22, 23 and 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 25.—(Power of Treasury to guarantee loans raised by the Commission.)

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir S. Cripps: I desire to ask the President of the Board of Trade on this Clause whether it is the intention of the Government that the Treasury shall guarantee any stock that is issued by the Commission?

10.0 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I cannot say at this stage whether it is the intention that the Treasury shall guarantee any stock that is issued by the Commission. It will depend on the conditions at the time. We think, however, that it would be wise to empower the Treasury to give this guarantee, so that it may be available should it appear at the time that the assistance which could be given by a Government guarantee would be desirable. That is the only answer that I can give to the hon. and learned Member's question. It must depend on the conditions at the time. I hope that the Committee will see their way to agree to the giving of that power.

Sir S. Cripps: Certainly we are in favour of the inclusion of this power, but we want to know what is the criterion of necessity. The Financial Secretary says that the power will be exercised if it is necessary, but what is that criterion? Is it the intention that the Commission shall be put into the position of raising money as economically as the Treasury could?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Yes, the object is that the money shall be raised as economically as possible. That is the reason for providing this power.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 27.—(Commission not to be exempt from taxation, etc.)

Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

10.4 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I want to ask the Minister who will be dealing with this matter whether the Commission are going to be liable for Income Tax on the whole of the sums they receive by way of royalties. If they are, it will make a very large hole indeed in their receipts. If on the whole of the£4,500,000 that they receive they are going to be liable for


Income Tax, without balanacing against it any outgoings—because they will not be making any profits—it is going to make a very serious reduction indeed in favour of the Exchequer before there is any possibility of a surplus arising, and it seems to us that these words
shall be deemed to exempt the Commission from liability for any tax, duty, rate, royalties, welfare levy, or other charge whatsoever, whether general or local,
may mean that every royalty payment will be liable to Income Tax, Property Tax, or whatever it may be, and that as a result there will be a very large reduction of the amount which is available. If the Commission are in fact going to purchase by the amortisation of their loan the whole of the royalties for the benefit of the country, that is to say, if the miners through the Commission are going to pay the coal royalties, it seems monstrous that they should be taxed for Income Tax purposes and so increase the already long period of time which it will take to build up a reserve with respect to those royalties. I cannot imagine that it is intended that that will take place, but it seems to be so from the use of these words.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: As I understand it, this Clause, which is declaratory, does make the Commission liable for all taxes, including Income Tax. What, of course, it does not make them liable for, and what many of the royalty owners are liable for in their private capacity, is Surtax, but I think there is nothing wrong here. The State otherwise would lose a very large sum of money from the transfer, and although I know the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks the Exchequer should be responsible for this, we, on the other hand, take the view that this should be assumed by the industry and that the profits as they accrue should be devoted to that industry. If you accept that principle, as we do, it seems to me that there is no justification for imposing on the Exchequer the loss of a very large sum of money by the exemption of the Commission from one particular tax while it remains liable for such taxes as Mineral Rights Duty and so on.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman indicate the amount of tax, exclusive of the tax that has been raised from the industry and which he proposes to continue to impose on the industry?

My impression, rightly or wrongly, is that State property is exempted from taxation at this time. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman contends that this is not State property and that it is not to have the benefits of State property in respect of taxation. The case that comes to my mind is the Carlisle licensing scheme, which I think is exempt from rates and taxes. It strikes me that there is a provision here that the mining industry shall continue to bear the taxation arising from royalties, when we were told that it was going to be a State unification of mining royalties, and some hon. Members on the other side have said that this is the ownership of royalties. As far as I understand now, the industry is to continue to bear the whole taxation and even Super-tax, that it has been bearing when the royalties were privately owned.

10.9 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me upon what basis the purchase price was fixed? Was it 15 years' purchase of the net receipts of the royalty owners, that is to say, after the deduction of taxation, or was it the gross receipts before deduction of taxation? The basis of 15 years' purchase was on the basis that the Commission were going to be taxed£4,000,000. We have all talked to-day on Clauses 20 and 21—and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister for Mines himself was talking—about the£4,500,000 that was going to be received, the£2,750,000 or whatever it was interest, and the expenditure of the probable surplus, but if it is going to be a taxation of 5s. in the£, there will be£1,000,000 in Income Tax to come off this£4,500,000 before we start. That will reduce it to£3,500,000. Then you have£2,750,000 for interest, then your amortisation, and I begin to think that the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) was nearer the truth than he believed, because I do not think he or anyone else in the Committee at that stage ever thought of£1,000,000 being deducted for Income Tax before we started to deal with the net receipts of the Commission. It entirely alters the complete aspect of this Bill.
The figures so far given on the Second Reading and during the Committee stage have been given on the basis that the net receipts will be£4,500,000, roughly. It is 15 times that sum that amounts to the£66,000,000, and nobody, I imagine, thought that£1,000,000 of that would be


taken by the Exchequer in the form of Income Tax, reducing the receipts to£3,500,000 and leaving this wretched Commission almost bankrupt before it starts. On that basis, because it has also got to pay all the other taxes, mineral duties and all the rest of them, it will have paid, not 15 years but 20 years' purchase for the net revenue they are to get, if that is the true state of the case. I beg that the right hon. Gentleman will at least examine the finance of this, because, I am sure inadvertently, that the Minister of Mines has completely misled the Committee in the course of these discussions. Time and again he has spoken about the surplus that would be available, when quite clearly, if this large sum is deducted for Income Tax, there will not be a surplus available at all.

10.12 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: There is also the question of the National Defence Contribution, which is a temporary tax, as we presume, in respect to which no reference has so far been made. The hon. and learned Gentleman was, I understood, always in favour of nationalisation, but he seems to object to it at this stage and is really in favour of syndicalism. But that is not the point that I wish to raise. Under this scheme the revenue of the Commission will be approximately£4,500,000, on which they will pay Income Tax in the same way as existing royalty owners. Now the royalty owners will receive a sum of£66,000,000 in the form of stock, and it is estimated that that will represent an income of£2,500,000. I take it that the royalty owners will also pay Income Tax on that£2,500,000. The present position is that on the income from mining royalties Income Tax is levied on£4,500,000. When this scheme goes through. Income Tax in respect of those royalties in future is to be levied on£7,000,000. We have only got to conduct a sufficient number of transfers so that every penny counts 2d., and we can raise all the revenue we like in this ingenious way. The real income which arises is£4,500,000. Are we going to have assessments on£7,000,000? [Laughter.] This is not a joke, but a perfectly serious matter. We have one lot of people collecting£4,500,000, and of that they hand£2,500,000 on to the present owners of the property. The£4,500,000 is to be

deemed to be income assessable to Income Tax in full. Is the£2,500,000 to be a charge against the£4,500,000? Therefore, is Income Tax to be assessed, not on£4,500,000, as the hon. and learned Gentleman estimates, but only on the difference of£2,000,000; and from that are there to be deducted the expenses of the Commission? If it is to be on£7,000,000, the Exchequer is committing a fraud on someone, I am not certain whom; because if you can run up your Estimates in an unlimited way that is a complete answer to every problem of every Chancellor of the Exchequer, until we are all incarcerated in lunatic asylums because we suddenly find that the money is not there.

10.16 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I am sorry. I ought to have made it clear, in answering the hon. and learned Gentleman, that, although the Commissioners are not exempt from Income Tax, they will not be liable on the amount of the interest on the loan, but only on their net revenue. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman when he speaks of a number of transactions running up the Estimates in an unlimited way. Because the amount of the interest on the loan is exempt, there will not be a double imposition of Income Tax on the Commission. That will also make it plain that the estimate of nearly£1,000,000 which the Commission will have to pay is excessive.

CLAUSE 28.—(Competence of the Commission to acquire associated minerals and rights.)

10.18 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 26, line 10, after "worked," to insert "either."
As the Committee have just passed no fewer than six Clauses without moving Amendments or having Divisions, I hope the Government will look with a kindly eye on this modest Amendment and the next on the Paper—in page 26, line 12, after "worked," to insert:
or otherwise in conjunction with coal which is being, or is proposed to be, worked 
—which slightly extend the powers of the Coal Commission. As the Clause suggests, substances such as ironstone and brick-clay are sometimes worked with


coal, and the Clause, as it stands, permits the Commission to acquire such substances when they can be brought to the surface through the same shaft or adits as the coal. These two Amendments will permit the Commission to acquire them, to facilitate combined working, even v/hen they are worked to a different shaft or adit.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I must confess that, until we had the explanation from the hon. Member, both my hon. and gallant Friend the Secretary for Mines and myself were in considerable doubt as to what the Amendment meant, and, therefore, we had not been able to form any opinion on it.
As I understand it now, the intention of the hon. Gentleman is to widen the powers of the Coal Commission—

Mr. Keeling: Yes.

Mr. Stanley: —and to increase the field over which they can exercise the powers of acquiring associated minerals by agreement. Whereas now it can only be done in cases where the other minerals can be economically worked through the adit which has been used to coal, the Amendment would extend it to any cases where there was working in conjunction with coal. If that is the meaning of the Amendment, and if its effect is merely to increase the powers of the Commission, it is clearly a thing to which we have no objection. Now I know the intention of the Mover, I should like to consider the matter before I accept an Amendment in these words. I certainly am in favour of extending the area over which the Commission can exercise the powers under Clause 28 and, therefore, I would desire to put down appropriate words to secure it.

Mr. Keeling: On that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdrawn the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 29.—(Saving for certain statutory rights.)

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 26, line 44, at the end, to add:

(3)—(a) In any case in which the fee simple in any coal or mine of coal and the fee simple in land supported thereby is vested at the passing of this Act in any statutory undertakers, and no coal-mining lease of the coal or mine of coal is subsisting at the passing of this Act, the following provisions shall have effect with respect to that coal or the coal in that mine (hereinafter in this Section referred to as 'the reserved coal'):
(i) the reserved coal shall not be worked except with the consent of the undertakers;
(ii) a coal-mining lease of the reserved coal shall not be granted except with the consent of the undertakers;
(iii) a right to withdraw support from the land supported by the reserved coal shall not be exercised or granted except with the consent of the undertakers:
Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to any coal in respect of which the undertakers have been paid compensation under this Act for their acquired interests in that coal:
Provided also that the consent of any statutory undertakers under this Sub-section shall not be unreasonably withheld and any dispute between any such undertakers and the Commission as to whether any such consent has been unreasonably withheld shall be referred to and determined by the Railway and Canal Commission, who shall have power to dispense with the consent of the undertakers in respect of any reserved coal subject to such terms and conditions for the benefit and protection of the undertakers as that Commission may think fit;
Provided further that if at any time after the vesting date the undertakers cease to require the reserved coal, or any part thereof for the purposes of support to their undertaking the undertakers may, notwithstanding anything in this Sub-section, center into an agreement with the Commission for the working of that coal on such terms and conditions as may be agreed, and one of the terms may be that the rent or part of the rent payable by the lessees under any coal-mining lease of that coal shall be paid to the undertakers.
(b) In this Sub-section the expression 'statutory undertakers' means any person authorised by or under an Act of Parliament, or an order having the force of an Act of Parliament, to construct, work, or carry on any railway, canal, inland navigation, dock, harbour, tramway, gas, electricity, water, or other public undertaking.
This rather formidable Amendment, which stands in the names of myself and the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. D. Adams), the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) and the hon. and learned Member for Newcastle East (Sir R. Aske), will, therefore, command the confidence of every hon. Member of the Committee. It has a formidable appearance, but it really has a very simple purpose, to protect the works of


certain statutory undertakers and local authorities who are not protected, as a great many local authorities and statutory undertakers are, by any special Act of Parliament, or by what we in the mining industry know as the mining code. The mining code is incorporated in the Railway Clauses Act, 1845, for the protection of railway companies and certain other statutory undertakers, but there are a great number of statutory undertakers, both local authorities and otherwise, who own fire stations, gas works, docks, harbours and canals, and are not protected by the mining code of the Railway Clauses Act. They have, in fact, relied not on any statutory protection but on the fact that they have actually purchased the minerals underneath their works, and in doing so they have in the past thought that thereby they had absolute security against their undertakings being interfered with by mining operations conducted beneath them.
It is no use to these undertakers to be paid compensation for damage to their undertakings. Their undertakings are of such importance that what they require is an absolute unchallengeable right of support. If damage occurred at docks at Newcastle or at Goole, or at some of our big power stations, such damage could not be put right by any payment of compensation. Under the Bill, the coal lying under these works vests in the Commission, who have the right to grant a mining lease of the coal lying under docks, canals, harbours, gas works or electricity undertakings, to whomsoever they may belong. The only protection which these statutory undertakers have is in Part II of the Second Schedule, under which they have to make an application to the Railway and Canal Commission for restrictions to be imposed upon the working of the coal, and they can be asked to make a payment to the Railway and Canal Commission in respect of the grant by the Commission of those restrictions. They can be asked to make that payment unless within six months of an advertisement by the Coal Commission that it intends to lease the coal, they make their application.
The position is that instead of the absolute right to the coal, they obtain under the Bill a very hazardous right, depending upon an application to the

court and the production of evidence, the onus of proof lying upon them to prove that the restrictions ought to be placed upon the working of the coal. The Amendment which I propose gives them a much better protection. It provides that the statutory undertakers actually own the coal at the date of the passing of the Act, and where the coal is not on lease that coal shall be called "reserved coal" and shall not be worked without the consent of the undertakers. These provisions do not apply unless three qualifications are satisfied. In the first place, they shall not have drawn any compensation under the Bill in respect of these areas of coal. That is to say, these undertakers are not asking both to have their cake and eat it. They are prepared to forego their compensation if they can obtain their rights to the reserving of the coal.
There is a further provision that if the consent of these undertakers is withheld, any dispute as to whether it is unreasonably withheld or not can be referred to the Railway and Canal Commission; but the Committee will observe that the onus of proof is changed. Under the provisions of the Amendment it will be up to the Coal Commission to satisfy the Railway and Canal Commission that the consent of the undertakers is being unreasonably withheld. There is a third proviso, under which coal reserved by statutory undertakers in this way can be released by them subsequently if they find that they do not need the coal for the support of their undertakings. I think this is a thoroughly reasonable Amendment. It is backed by hon. Members in all quarters of the Committee, and I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to see his way to accept it.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: This Amendment, as far as our proceeding is concerned, is unique. It is a united front Amendment, supported by hon. Members on all sides. The matter which it raises is one of considerable importance to a number of very important statutory bodies. Quite frankly, I think that in fact these bodies already have in the Bill as it stands an absolute and a satisfactory protection. I cannot believe that the Commission would deliberately undermine the security of undertakers of this kind. In the second place, the Commission will work under the direction of the Board of Trade in matters of public


interest, and no doubt it will be possible in that case to secure for them greater protection. If these safeguards fail, then there is still an application to the Railway and Canal Commission, and I can hardly conceive that such an application would fail. Therefore, I do not think these people would suffer any possible loss under the Bill as it stands.
On the other hand, I have considerable sympathy with their position. They have bought this coal for the express purpose of support, and they are unlikely in the circumstances to get proper compensation for it. They run one nominal risk that the purpose of their original action may be defeated. The Amendment as it stands is unacceptable, particularly the proviso which allows statutory bodies a sort of double option, first, as long as it suits them to have the coal left as their support, and, secondly, if it suits them better to allow the coal to be sold and to share in the amount. That is a difficult position to maintain. We have taken up the attitude in regard to other owners that if there is no value at the time we cannot leave them in possession of the coal in the hope that at some future date it may be worked for which they would get compensation. That in itself is unacceptable. I have some sympathy with what, I think, is rather a theoretical point raised by these undertakings, and between now and the next stage of the Bill I will look into the matter and see if I can devise an Amendment which will give effect to the suggestion.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) presented a case from the national standpoint. I desire to submit a case from a more localised standpoint and hope that the Minister may be even more sympathetic than he has already indicated. There is the case of the Tyne Improvement Commissioners on which I happen to be a representative of Newcastle Corporation. This is the conservancy authority for the River Tyne and Port of Newcastle, and in conformity with their statutory authority they have over a process of time acquired some 400 acres on the north bank of the river which includes two wet docks, numerous coal staithes, quays, warehouses, sheds and railways, which are used for the export and import of general cargo, coal, timber, etc. At Howden they have acquired

engineering shops where their river craft are repaired and other machinery built, and the capital sum expended on the dock estate is£2,500,000 and on the Howden Yard£87,000. The Tyne Commissioners own the coal under the great part of their dock estate and Howden Yard. They have never leased the coal or other minerals since they acquired them between the years 1857 and 1874. They also own the north and south piers at the mouth of the River Tyne, which were erected at a cost of£1,657,000. As late as 1934, coal was acquired from the Crown in order to protect these works.
The Tyne Commission is not a profit-making concern. They obtain revenue from the dues, tolls and charges upon goods, vessels and passengers, and the ferries which they own. They have a total loan debt of£3,129,000, which will be liquidated by a sinking fund provided from revenue. In the judgment of the Tyne Commission, it would be disastrous if the coal under their properties were worked in such a way as to incur any risk of subsidence. Clause 3 (2) provides that during the period between the valuation date, 1st January, 1939, and the vesting date, the Tyne Commission will cease to own all that coal and the Government will have the right to lease the coal for working. The Coal Commission would thus obtain the right to withdraw support from the overland works. It is true, further, that under Paragraph (6) of Part II of the Second Schedule, compensation for damage to overland works and buildings would be paid; but compensation would be of no advantage to the Tyne Commission. It will readily be seen that irreparable damage would be done if any of the coal were to be worked under the properties of this authority.
If this statutory body obtains the protection which it seeks, it will not, of course, expect any share of the£60,000,000. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman that the Tyne Commission and similar bodies were asking to have the advantage both ways was, in my judgment, not well-founded. The right hon. Gentleman asked why it is that the Tyne Commission should refuse to the Coal Commission the right, if necessary, to work the coal, and at some subsequent date, if the Tyne Commission so desired, that they should have the statutory right to lease or sell the coal to the


Coal Commission. That is very easily answered. Again and again the Tyne Commission have removed large tracks of land from the fairway of the river. For instance, the Salt Meadows estate has been dredged away, and a considerable area of coal-bearing land is under the River Tyne. Surely, it is not unreasonable that such coal should be worked. Again, there is very little doubt that there are certain works on the Tyne in possession of the Tyne Commission which may become redundant. If they are redundant, it is reasonable that the Tyne Commission should have the right to lease to the Coal Commission the coal under such works, for which they have no further use. Broadly, that is the situation. We ask that adequate protection should be given to this as to other statutory bodies, and I suggest that the opinion that we are protected by compensation has little bearing upon the case.

Mr. Peake: In view of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, from which I understand that discussion will take place between now and the remaining stages of the Bill, with a view to reaching agreement upon words for the protection of these undertakers, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I am sorry to intervene, but my name is down to this Amendment, and I did not know that the Mover proposed to take this course.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has been long enough in the House to know that if he insists on speaking the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

Mr. Williams: That is my purpose in rising. I wish to point out that the issue involved is a graver one than has yet been represented to the Committee. These public utilities, both municipal and company, represent interests which, together, are 20 or 30 times as great as the Commission will be. They have bought the rights of this coal for the sole purpose of ensuring that their undertakings shall not be prejudiced. In other words, we do not want to see a gas-holder falling down a coal mine, or an electricity works collapsing—

Mr. E. Smith: Or a house.

Mr. Williams: That does not come under this Amendment, I had my name down

to another Amendment about that point which was not called. We do not want to see the collapse of a reservoir for instance as a consequence of which the economic interests of a whole district might be paralysed. The right hon. Gentleman said that public utilities were properly protected under the Bill. The protection rests entirely on the assumption that the Commission will always be wise. If all Commissions were always wise, there would be no need to insert in Statutes a right of appeal against their decisions. What is desired here is that the coal which these people have bought, not to work it but solely in order that their undertakings shall not be in physical peril, should be sterilised, and it is not sought to deprive the Commission or those working coal mines, of the right to underground wayleaves. This is a matter of greater importance than, I think, the right hon. Gentleman has yet realised, and we ought to have an assurance that when he refers to the next stage of the Bill, he does not mean the Report stage. The next stage in one sense is when we consider the new Clauses. They will not come under consideration until late in February, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say that his undertaking means that a new Clause will be introduced to deal with this matter before the Bill has passed from the Committee. I assure him that there are many people profoundly concerned about this matter, and that they will not be satisfied with a rather vague and general promise in respect of the Report stage.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I hasten to reply, and I tell the hon. Gentleman at once that I am not in a position to accede to his demand. The hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment put his case very well. I expressed the opinion that there was some point in it and I promised that I would, before the next stage was reached, consider the matter and take steps to deal with it. Frankly, I think that promise is one on which I am entitled to ask the Committee to rely. I cannot think that those great undertakings to which the hon. Member referred attach much importance to whether this matter is dealt with by means of a new Clause which we shall reach some time in the early part of February, or by an Amendment to an existing Clause, which we shall reach on the Report stage a few weeks later. It


seems to me that all that matters is that the right thing should be done in the right place in the Bill. I have given that assurance to the Committee, and I ask the Committee to accept it in the spirit in which it is given.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Maitland: When my right hon. Friend reconsiders this matter may I ask him to bear in mind that the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend is also supported by the Association of Municipal Corporations on the general lines that have been laid down by the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams).

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 30.—(Execution of Registration Act and amendment as to inspection of the register.)

10.47 p.m.

Mr. Ritson: I beg to move, in page 27, line 8, to leave out Sub-section (2).
This Sub-section says that the Commission shall pay to the board the expenses incurred by the board under the Registration Act. We are surprised to find that the cost of the registration has to be paid for by the Commission. We feel that it should be paid for by the royalty owners. In my young days, when I went to register a child, I had the pleasure of paying for the registration. Here we have as healthy a financial child as was ever born. The Registration Act of last year—

The Deputy-Chairman: We cannot go into the question of an Act that has been passed.

Mr. Ritson: I was mentioning it by way of illustration. The Commission will have to pay the registration fees under this Sub-section, and we feel that, if the royalty owners cannot be made to pay them, the Exchequer should bear the burden. We have heard during the discussions to-night that the Commission is to pay for everything. I have never seen so many early birds after early worms as I have seen to-night. Every penny that the Commission has to pay will impoverish the men in the industry. I admire the tenacity of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). I have never known him to be so active as he has been on this Bill, but I admire his tenacity for looking after the interests of

the owners. We on this side feel that every penny taken falls on the backs of the workers. They will get nothing out of this Bill, but we find that before it is properly born all the resources will be eaten up by the people who take from us that which we ought to have.

10.50 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I am sure the hon. Member who moved the Amendment will join with me in not wishing to raise before the Committee any larger point than we have already discussed, which is implicit in the principles of the Bill. Last Session we passed the Registration Act, in anticipation of this Bill, and because it was impossible to deal with this Bill then. When that Act was passed the Commission was not in existence, and therefore the costs of registration, in so far as they were incurred under that Act, could not be paid by the Commission; but it is clear from this Bill that our intention undoubtedly is that the Commission should bear the cost of registration and valuation, because those are necessary incidents which have to be gone through in order to enable this property to be acquired by the Commission and fair compensation paid. Accepting that as the right principle, it surely is right that the expenses incurred in respect of the preliminary procedure under the Act of last Session should be dealt with in the same way, and although borne in the first instance by the Board of Trade they should be repaid to the Board of Trade by the Commission, which under this Bill is to bear the cost of the proceedings of registration in so far as they fall to be met under this Bill, and also the costs of valuation.

10.52 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I really do not follow the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman on this Amendment. For the convenience of the nation and in order to expedite legislation, the Registration Act was passed last Session. That was a preliminary step in order to make possible the nationalisation of royalties, which presumably is a step taken in the national interest. We on this side object to the Commission paying for the royalties, but that is another matter altogether. We say that cost ought to be met out of the Exchequer. Parliament having already decided that the Board of Trade should pay, because Parliament thought it was worth while to the nation, in the national


interest, to get a scheme of nationalisation of royalties, there is no justification for now passing that debt on to the Commission. Surely that amount of pecuniary interest is not an excessive amount for the nation as a whole to pay, considering the benefit which presumably is to be derived from the reorganisation of the coal industry, and it is not asking much to ask that the Commission, and therefore the people working in the industry, should be relieved of this expenditure which Parliament has already expressly

placed upon the shoulders of the Board of Trade. In view of the national interest I can see no conceivable reason why the miners should have to pay this expenditure and not the nation, and we feel that there is no justification for altering the decision to which Parliament came when it last considered this matter.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 217; Noes, 97.

Division No. 71.]
AYES.
[10.56 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Macdonald, Capt. T. (Isle of Wight)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Albery, Sir Irving
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
McKie, J. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Everard, W. L.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.


Apsley, Lord
Fildes, Sir H.
Maitland, A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Findlay, Sir E.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Assheton, R.
Fleming, E. L.
Mander, G. le M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Foot, D. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Balniel, Lord
Fremantle, Sir F. E.
Markham, S. F.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Furness, S. N.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gibson, Sir C. G. (Pudsey and Otley)
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Beechman, N. A.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Bossom, A. C.
Goldie, N. B.
Mitchell, H. (Brentford and Chiswick)


Boulton, W. W.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Grant-Ferris, R.
Moreing, A. C.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P.


Bull, B. B.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Nall, Sir J.


Burghley, Lord
Grigg, Sir E. W. M.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Butler, R. A.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
O'Neill, RI. Hon. Sir Hugh


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Carver, Major W. H.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Patrick, C. M.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn, N. (Edgb't'n)
Hannah, I. C.
Peake, O.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Peat, C. U.


Christie, J. A.
Harbord, A.
Petherick, M.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hely, Hutchinson, M. R.
Procter, Major H. A.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Radford, E. A.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Higgs, W. F.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Holdsworth, H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Holmes, J. S.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hopkinson, A.
Rankin, Sir R.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Cross, R. H.
Hunter, T.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Crossley, A. C.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Jones, L. (Swansea W.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland. N.)


De Chair, S. S.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Denville, Alfred
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)



Dodd, J. S.
Kimball, L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Doland, G. F.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Rowlands, G.


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Royds, Admiral P. M. R.


Duggan, H. J,
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Levy, T.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Dunglass, Lord.
Lindsay, K. M.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Eastwood, J. F.
Lipson, D. L.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Eckersley, P. T.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Salmon, Sir I.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Salt, E. W.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Loftus, P. C.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Savery, Sir Servington


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lyons, A. M.
Scott, Lord William


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Errington, E.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Selley, H. R.


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)




Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Thomas, J. P. L.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Titchfield, Marquess of
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.
Wakefield, W. W.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Wise, A. R.


Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Storey, S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Wragg, H.


Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.



Sutcliffe, H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Tate, Mavis C.
Wells, S. R.
Captain Hope and Captain Dugdale.


Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
While, H. Graham





NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whiteohapel)
Paling, W.


Ammon, C. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Parker, J.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Hayday, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Price, M. P.


Barnes, A. J.
Hills, A, (Pontelract)
Ridley, G.


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hopkin, D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Benson, G.
Jagger, J,
Sextan, T. M.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silkin, L.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Kelly, W. T.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cape, T.
Lathan, G.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cluse, W. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Letch, W.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Lee, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leslie, J. R.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Daggar, G.
Logan, D. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Walkden, A. G.


Dobbie, W.
McGhee, H. G.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
MacNeill Weir, L.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Marshall, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Messer, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Montague, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Grenfell, D. R.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Adamson.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 31.—(Extension of time limit on applications for registration in respect of which costs are to be payable.)

11.3 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 28, line 4, at the end, to add:
Provided that this section shall not have effect in relation to a holding that is ultimately certified to have no value.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure as far as possible that registration costs under this Bill shall be payable subject only to certain conditions. Under the Registration Act, the position was that costs could not be payable, and that position remains in all applications under that Act. The Amendment applies to costs under this Measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 32.—(General power to extend time limits.)

11.5 p.m.

Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 28, line 7, after "date," to insert "on or."
In Clause 31 it is laid down more than once that something is to be done on a particular date, not before it. This Amendment corrects what seems to be the obvious omission from Clause 32 of the word "on," and I am sure the Government will accept it.

Captain Crookshank: The Amendment merely makes a grammatical correction, and we accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 33, 34 and 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 36.—(Application of Part I to Forest of Dean.)

11.8 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 29, line 30, to leave out "Section four," and to insert "Sections four and five."
This is the first of a rather formidable list of Amendments, but there is not as much in them as might appear from the space they occupy on the Order Paper. I think it will be for the convenience of the Committee if I deal particularly with the first of them, which I am now moving, with the ninth, which is to insert new Sub-sections (4) and (5), and the fifth, to leave out Sub-section (3). All of these Amendments arise out of the question which Clauses of the Bill shall apply to the Forest of Dean, owing to the special position of the coal mining industry in that area. Clause 5 of the Bill, which deals with retained interests, has already been admitted to have no effect on the Forest of Dean, and the proper place to omit it is the place in which we are now referring to it, namely, in this Sub-section (2), which deals with the question of what shall be retained and what shall not be acquired by the Commission. The new Sub-sections referred to in the ninth Amendment are in substitution for Sub-section (3), which refers to a number of Clauses of the Bill. The point is that those Clauses are inapplicable to the special conditions of the Forest of Dean, which is managed by the Forestry Commission, who will continue to manage it. I apologise to the Committee for the fact that in our first scrutiny we did not realise how many of the Clauses of the Bill had no application to the Forest of Dean.

The Deputy-Chairman: Would the Attorney-General mind repeating, for my information, the Amendments with which he was dealing?

The Attorney-General: I was dealing with the first Amendment—in page 29, line 30, to leave out "Section four "and insert "Sections four and five "; the ninth Amendment—in page 30, line 8, at the end, to insert new Sub-sections (4) and (5); and the intermediate Amendments, in page 29, line 43, to leave out Sub-section (3).

11.10 p.m.

Mr. Price: I am much obliged to the Attorney-General for his explanation.

Not being a lawyer, I find it a little difficult to understand, but I happen to know the peculiar conditions prevailing in the Forest of Dean and as I understand them, I think I am right in saying that what this really means is that the rights of the free miners in the Forest of Dean are exempt from the operations of this Bill, that this Clause takes out from the Bill the rights which these miners have in the royalties of certain coal seams there, that the rights of the Forestry Commission in these seams will be handed over to the Coal Commission, who will become the proprietary owners of them, but that the royalties themselves will be paid back to the Forestry Commission and will appear in their accounts as before. In other words, this is simply a bookkeeping entry. It is a very interesting and remarkable situation, and I think some of my hon. Friends on this side have often wondered how it is that there are miners in the Forest of Dean who are themselves royalty owners. When we come to speak of the royalties issue in the Forest of Dean we have to be very careful what we say, because on going back many hundreds of years we find that any working miner who has been born in a certain hundred of the Forest of Dean and has worked for a year and a day in any of the coal mines in the Forest of Dean has the right to put down his name in one of the societies there which are formed for the purpose of claiming royalty interest in certain coal seams, and they are then, along with the Forestry Commissioners, namely, the State, royalty owners. The shares are then apportioned between the State on the one hand and the miners on the other. As it seems to me, the Bill hands over the proprietary interest in these seams to the Coal Commission, gives back these royalties as a book-keeping entry to the Forestry Commission, but leaves that section of the royalties to the free miners where they were before. That, as I understand in all this verbiage, is practically what it comes to. If I am wrong, I hope the Attorney-General will put me right, but I think it is just as well, as one who has to deal with the free miners, to have it put right.

11.14 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I do not think the hon. Gentleman has got it quite right, but I can give him the categorical assurance that the rights of the free miners


are preserved. The Forestry Commissioners will continue to exercise their existing powers of management, but the coal will vest in the Commission, who will pay compensation for it and get the royalties. It is not a mere book entry of the money going to the Commission and back again to the Forestry Commissioners, but I think the point that the hon. Member is probably interested in is the fact that the powers of management of the Forestry Commissioners will continue as they are, and the rights of the free miners are preserved.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 39, line 34, leave out "all the estate and interest," and insert "the interest."

In line 40, leave out "estates."

In line 41, leave out "rights, powers. and liabilities."

In line 43, leave out Sub-section (3).—[The Attorney-General.]

11.18 p.m.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 30, line 1, at the beginning, to insert:
In the application of Sections six and seven of this Act, and of the Third Schedule to this Act, to the coal and mines of coal comprised in the said land, the interest therein subsisting in the Forestry Commissioners at the valuation date, and no other interest, shall be treated as as acquired interest, and.
This is a clarifying Amendment. It makes it clear that in relation to the Forest of Dean, the words "acquired interests" mean that the only interests which are in fact acquired are the property interests at present vested in the Forestry Commission.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 30, line 4, leave out "estate and interest vested in the Commission," and insert "interest."—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 30, line 5, to leave out "for the communication to the Regional Valuation Board," and insert:
(in substitution for the provisions of that Schedule relating to registration under the Registration Act and the notification to the Regional Valuation Board of such registration) for the notification to that Board by the Forestry Commissioners.

The gist of this Amendment is in the words in brackets. It might have been that without the insertion of those words the Forestry Commission might have to apply under the Registration Act and it is not desirable that they should have to do that, because the information which will be obtained under that Act is already in the possession of the Forestry Commission and will be available to the Board of Trade and the Coal Commission. These words make it clear that they do not have to register under that Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 30, line 8, at the end, insert:
(5) Sections, eight to twelve, Sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section thirteen and Section seventeen of this Act, and the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Schedules to this Act, shall not have effect.
(6) References to coal shall not be construed as including references to minerals or substances, that are subsidiary coal hereditaments within the meaning of Section six of this Act.

In line 13, leave out "estate and".

In line 15, leave out "estate and".

In line 26, leave out "estate and".— [The Attorney-General.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37.—(Definitions for purposes of Part I.)

11.21 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, in page 32, line 29, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in the case of any coal or mine of coal in respect of which any right was saved by paragraph five of the Twelfth Schedule to the Law of Property Act, 1922, the persons who for the purposes of this definition shall be regarded as interested in that coal or mine shall include any person in whom by the custom of the manor concerned such coal or mine is vested and any person claiming under him, but shall not include any person whose only interest in such coal or mine is that by the custom of the manor concerned such coal or mine may not be worked without his consent or any person claiming under such last-mentioned person,
I wish that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), in whose name this Amendment stands, had been here, because it deals with a legal problem of very considerable complexity, and I do not suggest that I have fully mastered all the complexities of the


subject. [An HON. MEMBER: "Ask the Noble Lord."] The Noble Lord the Member for Newark (Marquess of Titchfield) may in due course seek the opportunity of further elucidating the point. In the meantime this peculiar situation arises. In the case of land held by copyhold the lord of the manor is, in fact, the owner of the capital value of the minerals, and the copyholder has no financial interest in them, though he may have the right to veto their working. In these circumstances, when the Commission have this right in the ownership of coal the right of the veto of the copyholder goes, as does also the capital interest of the lord of the manor. In general, the financial loss is that of the lord of the manor and not necessarily that of the copyholder, because his object in vetoing would be the circumstances which might arise if damage were done to the surface, in which he had an interest in respect of damage to surface. Though I speak subject to correction in connection with this very difficult Bill, I think he would already be protected in other ways. Therefore, it is clearly the lord of the manor only who should be entitled to a share in the global sum and not necessarily the very large number of copyholders.
I am not seeking to defend the interests of the big against the little, though at first sight it might appear to be so; I am seeking that the law, as it may be after the passage of this Measure, shall really represent the facts as they are to-day. I am advised by those who are experts on this subject that the Amendment will really put the law into a form that will be more essentially equitable, and it is for that reason that I move it.

11.24 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) says that he has not fully mastered the complexity of the subject, and it is doubtful whether anybody in this country is seized of the intricacies of the copyhold law. What the Amendment seeks to do is to take out of any share in the global figure the copyholder. As I understand it, the rights of copyholders vary considerably in the customs of different manors. Generally speaking, the consent of the owner of. the copyhold as well as that of the Lord of the Manor has to be secured before coal is worked. In cases where that assent is given the

usual practice with copyhold coal is that a payment is made to the Lord of the Manor who passes on some part of it or else it is paid direct to the copyholder concerned.
I cannot accept the Amendment because the coal in or against which copyholders have rights would remain subject thereto, which would mean that there would still exist a form of tenure, for which a payment would have to be made. It is one of the objects of the Bill to get rid of all that kind of thing. Apart from that, the second reason is that these current payments to copyholders were included in the figure of the income which went to make up the global figure. Therefore, it would not be possible to take them out. For these reasons we cannot accept the Amendment.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I understand that the drafting of the Amendment would require modification, which does not surprise me, having regard to the complexity of the subject. With regard to the more serious point, that these rights were taken into account in the global sum; as I understand it, that sum was ascertained in a singularly crude manner. They said: "What is the income?" The reply was, so many million pounds. They then said: '"Let us call it 15 years" and they multiplied one by the other and got the global sum. It seems to me that in those circumstances, unless the copyholder was the recipient of some of the£4,500,000, or whatever the precise sum was, it is not possible to say that they were taken into account in fixing the global sum, because that was the product of so much a year multiplied by 15 years. These copyholders were not in receipt of so many pence or so many pounds, and consequently there was nothing to multiply by 15 so far as they were concerned. Therefore, it does not seem to me that they were taken into account. In these circumstances, I hope the Minister will reexamine the text of the Amendment, so that if I move it again at a later stage in the right form, he will re-examine the argument he used, because I think it is open to substantial criticism. However, having regard to what he said and the complexity of the subject, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 38 (Application of Part I to Scotland.)

Amendment made: In page 36, line 4, leave out "not.".—[The Lord Advocate.]
Ordered,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — GAS UNDERTAKINGS ACTS, 1920 TO 1934.

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Company, which was presented on the 30th day of November and published, be approved with the following addition:—
Page 26, Second Schedule, at end, insert—
The Common Seal of the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Gas Company was hereunto affixed in the presence of

JAMES W. ELLIS, Director. T P RIDLEY, Secretary."

(L.S.)

Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Penzance

Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 26th day of October and published, be approved with the following modification:
Page 6, Clause 20, line 38, leave out 'thirteen,' and insert 'twelve.'
Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Brighton, Hove and Worthing Gas Company, which was presented on the 30th day of November and published, be approved subject to the following modification:
Clause 1, page 1, line 14, after '1294), 'insert' and the Hassocks and District Gas Order, 1936 (S.R. & O., 1936, No. 345).' 
Resolved,
That the draft of a Special Order proposed to be made by the Board of Trade under the Gas Undertakings Acts, 1920 to 1934, on the application of the Stanley and District Gas Company, Limited, which was presented on the 30th day of November and published, be approved.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.